
Safety 2010 Conference CMS

View Abstract Reviews

Reviews

Reviewer	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	recommendation	Total
Massimo Mirandola	2	3	4	3	oral	12
Debra Houry	4	3	3	4	oral	14
					Overall Total	26
					Average	13

Back to Previous Page

Email: *	[email protected]
Surname: *	Jayatilleke
First Name: *	Achini Chinthika
Job Title: *	PhD Student
Institution: *	University of Tokyo
Address *	Department of Community and Global Health, Graduate School of Medicine, Hongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo ku, Tokyo
Post/Zip Code *	113-0033

Preferred presentation mode *

oral

Are you prepared to accept an alternative presentation mode? *

Yes

Title of paper *

Public health midwives perceived barriers to identify intimate partner violence (IPV) and their identification of IPV victims in Sri Lanka.

Authors: *

Achini Chinthika Jayatilleke, Krishna C Poudel, Fernando N, Junko Yasuoka, Achala Upendra Jayatilleke, Masamine Jimba

Presenting Author: *

Achini Chinthika Jayatilleke

Topic(s): *

Intimate partner and sexual violence

Other Topic(s)

Key Words

intimate pertner violence public health midwives victims of IPV Sri Lanka

Abstract Content *

Objectives
We assessed the association between public health midwives perceived barriers to identify intimate partner violence (IPV) and their identification of IPV victims in Sri Lanka.

Methods
We carried out a community-based cross sectional study in the Kandy district, Sri Lanka between August and September 2009. Participants were all the public health midwives in the Kandy district (n=425). We collected data on midwives identification of IPV victims during the past three months, and their agreement to six possible barriers for the identification of IPV. We analysed data using the multivariate logistic regression analysis; we adjusted the six barriers for midwives work duration, education, and marital status.

Results
Of the 425 midwives, 48 (11.3%) reported that they did not identify any IPV victim during the past three months. Midwives were less likely to identify IPV victims if they agreed that I dont have adequate knowledge to detect or help IPV victims (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR)=0.30, 95% Confidence Interval (CI)=0.12-0.73), or I dont feel that I can help an IPV victim (AOR=0.17, 95% CI=0.07-0.43). However, we did not observe such an association between the following barriers and midwives identification of IPV: my work load is too much, women are always accompanied by someone, asking on IPV might offend women and though identified, there are no supportive services for IPV victims.

Conclusions
Sri Lankan midwives were less likely to identify IPV victims if they perceived that they do not have an adequate knowledge or the ability to identify and support the IPV victims.

Back to Previous Page

View Abstract Reviews

Reviews

Web favorites