| Literature DB >> 35300736 |
Gelila Abraham1,2, Beshea Gelana3, Kiddus Yitbarek3, Sudhakar Morankar4,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic violence is a public health issue that has a long-term and irreversible effect on the victims. There are vulnerable groups like children, women, and elders. The problem becomes worse for these populations in the time of catastrophic events including disease pandemics. However, few attempts have been made to systematically review the prevalence and pattern of domestic violence during these times all over the world.Entities:
Keywords: Disease outbreak; Domestic violence; Epidemic; Pandemic; Prevalence; Vulnerable groups
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35300736 PMCID: PMC8929711 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-01920-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Syst Rev ISSN: 2046-4053
Search strategy of PubMed database
MEDLINE (PubMed). Date searched: 13 October 2020 Results retrieved: 8194 (((((((“epidemiology”[Subheading] OR “epidemiology”[All Fields] OR “prevalence”[All Fields] OR “prevalence”[MeSH Terms]) AND (“domestic violence”[MeSH Terms] OR (“domestic”[All Fields] AND “violence”[All Fields]) OR “domestic violence”[All Fields])) OR “violence”[MeSH Terms]) OR “physical abuse”[MeSH Terms]) AND “sex offenses”[MeSH Terms]) OR (“disease outbreaks”[MeSH Terms] OR (“disease”[All Fields] AND “outbreaks”[All Fields]) OR “disease outbreaks”[All Fields] OR (“disease”[All Fields] AND “outbreak”[All Fields]) OR “disease outbreak”[All Fields])) OR “epidemics”[MeSH Terms]) AND “pandemics”[MeSH Terms] |
Critical appraisal tool for included studies
| Study design | Tool | Domains | Overall risk of bias judgement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cross-sectional studies | JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data | 1. Was the sample frame appropriate to address the target population? 2. Were study participants sampled in an appropriate way? 3. Was the sample size adequate? 4. Were the study subjects and the setting described in detail? 5. Was the data analysis conducted with sufficient coverage of the identified sample? 6. Were valid methods used for the identification of the condition? 7. Was the condition measure in a standard, reliable way for all participants? 8. Was there appropriate statistical analysis? 9. Was the response rate adequate, and if not, was the low response rate managed appropriately? | An item would be scored ‘0’ if it was answered ‘no’ or ‘unclear’; if it was answered ‘yes’, then the item scored ‘1’. Methodological quality will be considered ‘low’, ‘moderate’, and ‘high’ if three or less, four to six, and seven to nine criteria will be met, respectively. |
Study details Reviewer – Study ID/Record Number - Date – Study title – Author – Year – Journal – Aims of the study – Study method Setting – Study design – Follow-up or study duration – Subject characteristics – Dependent variable – Outcomes – Outcome measurements – Ethical approval – Method of data analysis – Results Prevalence Proportion and 95% confidence intervals – Incidence Proportion and 95% confidence intervals and duration of recruitment or the study – Authors’ comments – Reviewer comments – |