Introduction
In research, study design, analysis of the collected data, and a coherent report of the findings are vital as they allow readers to understand whether the study results are valid and represent reality. It is crucial to ensure the selected design is valid and the research findings are based on the collected data and reported within the existing literature on the topic. This review will consider the design, analysis, and the discussion and results section of three research studies dedicated to different domestic violence interventions.
Study Design, Design Validity, Analysis, and Results
Article #1
The article is dedicated to domestic violence experienced by psychiatric care users and low rates of abuse identification. The authors offer a comprehensive description of the intervention, documenting the offered domestic violence and mental illness training sessions (Trevillion et al., 2013). Furthermore, the procedure relating to the two control groups is described. Trevillion et al. (2013) note that clinicians in control groups did not receive domestic violence training. The control groups are sufficiently adequate for the reviewed study as they include similar Community Mental Health Teams (CMHTs) as those in the intervention arm and have a comparable caseload. The procedure flows logically, with clinicians receiving the training they lack, domestic abuse advisors being educated on mental illness, establishing a clear referral pathway, and forming an integrated domestic violence advocacy body. The study received ethical approval, with all psychiatric care patients interviewed privately to safeguard their identity.
The analysis section of the study provides sufficient information on how the data was assessed. It is organized into three subsections, explaining the utilized statistical, economic, and qualitative analyses. Descriptive statistics were employed as the primary statistical method, with medians as a summary statistic. The method can help identify any significant changes in the variables, such as clinicians’ awareness at the baseline and post-intervention. The results section compares the medians for all intervention and control group variables at the baseline and post-intervention in a table format. The tables are clearly labeled and complement the text, providing data that would be difficult to incorporate otherwise.
The discussion of the findings flows from the data, with the section focusing on clinicians’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, service users’ outcomes, and cost outcomes. The findings are not discussed within an acknowledged theoretical framework, with Trevillion et al. (2013) presenting interpretations of the results within the context of previous research on the topic. Moreover, the literature on domestic abuse supports the reached conclusions. Various limitations of the study, including the small sample size, are included. The authors note that future research on the feasibility and effectiveness of interventions is needed and suggest that greater collaboration between psychiatric care workers and domestic violence advisors should be established.
Article #2
The second article concerns hospital-based advocacy services for individuals visiting emergency and maternity departments. The procedure consisted of data collection from different hospital-based and community-based services. Thus, the authors clearly describe all the collected datasets, including case-level datasets, service safety, health outcomes, and health service use. The steps of the procedure relating to the collection are detailed, with Halliwell et al. (2019) describing what data is collected in each dataset. The description of the procedure flows logically, and the necessity of each dataset is stated. However, the authors do not provide any information concerning controls. The study received ethics approval, and all participants signed an informed consent form to protect their privacy and confidentiality.
The data analysis section is well-organized and describes all utilized tests. Halliwell et al. (2019) employed t-tests and chi-square statistics to compare demographic valuables and non-parametric statistical tests with mean and median values to measure pre- and post-intervention outcomes. The elected methods are appropriate as they allow for comparing the data collected from two groups and determining whether the received results are statistically significant. Halliwell et al. (2019) present several tables in the results section that complement the text and provide data that is too difficult and numerous to describe in text. All tables are clearly labeled, and the information given in them is explicated in the text of the article.
The discussion section of the article flows logically from the collected data. Halliwell et al. (2019) discuss each finding within the context of previous research, noting if their discoveries mirror or divert from prior works (Halliwell et al., 2019). The discussion section is structured as the interpretation of the findings reported in the results section, discussing the significance of the findings. No theoretical framework is presented, and all the conclusions reached by Halliwell et al. (2019) are based on the research findings and previous studies. For instance, the conclusion that establishing hospital-based domestic violence advocacy services translates into increased referrals is supported by the collected data and reflects the existing research. The study’s primary limitations are the nonexperimental design and self-reported measures for patient outcomes. The authors insist that further research is needed to confirm the study results and suggest that hospitals establish domestic violence advocacy services to help health care professionals better identify abuse.
Article #3
The third article discusses an eHealth intervention design to help female victims of domestic abuse. Gelder et al. (2020) provide a detailed description of all steps of the utilized procedure, from the development of the intervention to its structure. The authors note that the input regarding the women concerning their safety when accessing the eHealth application was taken into account during the development stages and discuss how participants can access help through the SAFE (Gelder et al., 2020). The procedure is written clearly and flows logically, with the main focus on ensuring the participants’ safety and confidentiality. For example, all emails sent to the participants will be assigned neutral names. Gelder et al. (2020) note that two control groups are to be included to ensure the study’s internal validity. The participants will be assigned to control groups randomly and offered to use a control version of the SAFE website with minimal intervention offered. Therefore, it can be argued that the control groups are adequate for the discussed study.
As the article describes a future study, the data analysis section is brief but well-organized. It describes the statistical analyses the authors plan on using. The authors are planning on utilizing the ANCOVA and Generalized Estimation Equation model to analyze various variables. Considering the purpose of the study is to evaluate the SAFE website and compare outcomes for the intervention and control group, the proposed statistical analyses seem appropriate as they will allow assessing the effect of the intervention on the examined population. No results section is presented, as the research has not been carried out yet. Therefore, the discussion section does not examine or interpret the findings and does not offer any conclusions. However, it provides certain limitations, including the notion that domestic abuse victims are difficult to reach and may be hesitant to join the study. The authors note that if the study is successful, the proposed eHealth intervention can be implemented in the health care system.
Conclusion
In summary, domestic abuse continues to present a significant public health problem as it affects the victims, their friends and family, and the community as a whole. The revised research studies followed different designs and analysis methods and procedures. The results of the two studies were presented within the context of the previous research on the topic, and the findings were based on the collected data.
References
Gelder, N. E., Van Rosmalen-Nooijens, K. A., A Ligthart, S., Prins, J. B., Oertelt-Prigione, S., & Lagro-Janssen, A. L. (2020). SAFE: An eHealth intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, process evaluation and open feasibility study. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–8. Web.
Halliwell, G., Dheensa, S., Fenu, E., Jones, S. K., Asato, J., Jacob, S., & Feder, G. (2019). Cry for health: A quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1–12. Web.
Trevillion, K., Byford, S., Cary, M., Rose, D., Oram, S., Feder, G., Agnew-Davies, R., & Howard, L. M. (2013). Linking abuse and recovery through advocacy: An observational study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 23(1), 99–113. Web.