| Literature DB >> 29299613 |
Danielle A M Lako1,2, Mariëlle D Beijersbergen1, Irene E Jonker1, Renée de Vet1, Daniel B Herman3, Albert M van Hemert4, Judith R L M Wolf5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of critical time intervention (CTI)-an evidence-based intervention-for abused women transitioning from women's shelters to community living.Entities:
Keywords: Abused women; Intervention; Intimate partner violence; Quality of life; RCT; Women’s shelters
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29299613 PMCID: PMC5938300 DOI: 10.1007/s00038-017-1067-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Public Health ISSN: 1661-8556 Impact factor: 3.380
Components of critical time intervention (CTI) in each phase (The Netherlands, 2010–2013)
| Phase | Pre-CTI | Phase 1: transition to the community | Phase 2: try-out | Phase 3: transfer of care |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Timing | Between assignment and discharge | Between discharge and 3 months after discharge | Between 3 and 6 months after discharge | Between 6 and 9 months after discharge |
| Responsibilities of CTI worker | Build a relationship | Build a relationship by working in the community | Less frequent contact | Adapt, improve and monitor resources |
| Materialsa |
|
|
|
|
| Intensity | At least 3 meetings with client and her children (if any) before discharge, with no more than 1 month between each meeting (10 h in total) | Average of 3 h per week (36 h in total) | Average of 2 h per week (24 h in total) | Average of 0.5–1 h per week (6–12 h in total) |
A similar table is provided in an article by de Vet et al. (2017a)
aA detailed description of the materials can be found elsewhere (de Vet et al. 2017b)
Fig. 1Flow chart of participants in the study into the effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters (The Netherlands, 2010–2013)a
Baseline characteristics of women in experimental (critical time intervention) and control (care-as-usual) group (The Netherlands, 2010–2013)
| Baseline characteristic | CTI ( | CAU ( |
|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 34.24 (8.52) | 33.58 (8.08) |
| Foreign background | ||
| Dutch native | 21 (30%) | 15 (23%) |
| First-generation migranta | 39 (56%) | 43 (65%) |
| Second-generation migrant | 10 (14%) | 8 (12%) |
| Marital status | ||
| Married or registered partnership | 22 (31%) | 28 (42%) |
| Divorced or never married | 48 (69%) | 38 (58%) |
| One or more children | 63 (90%) | 59 (89%) |
| Education levelb | ||
| Low | 47 (68%) | 41 (63%) |
| Intermediate | 16 (23%) | 14 (22%) |
| High | 6 (9%) | 10 (15%) |
| Violence prior to shelter | ||
| Emotional | 68 (100%) | 62 (98%) |
| Physical | 52 (77%) | 52 (83%) |
| Sexual | 30 (44%) | 17 (27%) |
| Duration of violence, years | ||
| ≤ 1 | 6 (9%) | 10 (16%) |
| 1–5 | 34 (51%) | 30 (48%) |
| 5–10 | 14 (21%) | 13 (21%) |
| > 10 | 13 (19%) | 9 (15%) |
| General quality of lifec | 4.85 (1.31) | 4.61 (1.18) |
| CES-D scoreg | 16.76 (10.91) | 20.36 (11.49) |
| IES scoreh | 33.07 (20.06) | 29.90 (23.03) |
| BSI global severity indexi | 0.78 (0.65) | 0.88 (0.66) |
| RSES scorej | 21.15 (4.98) | 20.89 (4.92) |
| Family supportd | 3.18 (1.34) | 3.18 (1.28) |
| Social supporte | 3.52 (1.07) | 3.47 (0.89) |
| Unmet care needs in one or more life domainsf | 59 (91%) | 43 (83%) |
CTI critical time intervention, CAU care-as-usual, M mean, SD standard deviation, CES-D Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale, IES Impact of Event Scale, BSI Brief Symptom Inventory, RSES Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
aFirst-generation migrants were from Morocco (22%), Turkey (15%), Iran (6%), Poland (5%), Surinam (5%) and other countries (11% Western and 37% non-Western). We have no information about how long they had been in the Netherlands
bLow no education, primary education, preparatory secondary vocational education or senior secondary vocational education (assistant training or basic vocational education); Intermediate senior secondary vocational education (professional education or middle-management), general secondary education or pre-university education; High higher professional education or university education
cn = 69 in experimental group and n = 64 in control group
dn = 58 in experimental group and n = 43 in control group
en = 59 in experimental group and n = 43 in control group
fn = 65 in experimental group and n = 52 in control group
gn = 64 in experimental group and n = 50 in control group
hn = 58 in experimental group and n = 46 in control group
in = 59 in experimental group and n = 45 in control group
jn = 59 in experimental group and n = 47 in control group
Results of the intention-to-treat analyses of the primary (quality of life), secondary (re-abuse, symptoms of depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychological distress, and self-esteem), and intermediate (family support, social support, and unmet care needs) outcomes (The Netherlands, 2010–2013)
| CTI ( | CAU ( | Adjusted mean difference/OR (95% CI)a | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Primary outcome at T9 | ||||||
| General quality of life | 63 | 5.15 (1.20) | 61 | 4.76 (1.22) | 0.20 (− 0.25 to 0.66) | 0.38 |
| Secondary outcomes | ||||||
| Re-abuse at T3, T6 and T9b | ||||||
| T3 | 64 | 11 (17%) | 59 | 8 (14%) | – | |
| T6 | 64 | 14 (22%) | 59 | 9 (15%) | 1.24 (0.27–5.65) | 0.78 |
| T9 | 64 | 7 (11%) | 59 | 9 (15%) | 0.44 (0.09–2.21) | 0.32 |
| CES-D score at T9 | 58 | 18.33 (12.64) | 53 | 17.74 (12.13) | 3.85 (− 0.34 to 8.03) | 0.07 |
| IES score at T9 | 57 | 29.04 (20.31) | 50 | 32.19 (19.07) | − 7.27 (− 14.31 to − 0.22) | 0.04 |
| BSI global severity index at T9 | 58 | 0.76 (0.69) | 51 | 0.75 (0.69) | 0.06 (− 0.16 to 0.27) | 0.61 |
| RSES score at T9 | 58 | 21.06 (5.07) | 51 | 21.04 (5.14) | − 0.11 (− 2.16 to 1.93) | 0.91 |
| Intermediate outcomes at T9 | ||||||
| Family support | 57 | 3.11 (1.24) | 50 | 3.49 (1.34) | − 0.36 (− 0.85 to 0.13) | 0.15 |
| Social support | 56 | 3.44 (1.04) | 49 | 3.48 (0.93) | − 0.07 (− 0.48 to 0.34) | 0.74 |
| Unmet care needs | 59 | 37 (63%) | 52 | 40 (77%) | 0.23 (0.06–0.94) | 0.04 |
CTI critical time intervention, CAU care-as-usual, T3 3-month follow-up, T6 6-month follow-up, T9 9-month follow-up, M mean, SD standard deviation, OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, CES-D Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression scale, IES Impact of Event Scale, BSI Brief Symptom Inventory, RSES Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
a Intention-to-treat analysis for secondary outcome re-abuse adjusted for organization. Intention-to-treat analyses for other outcomes adjusted for baseline scores/proportions and organization
b T3 was used as a reference category