| Title |
The effectiveness of critical time intervention for abused women leaving women’s shelters: a randomized controlled trial
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00038-017-1067-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danielle A. M. Lako, Mariëlle D. Beijersbergen, Irene E. Jonker, Renée de Vet, Daniel B. Herman, Albert M. van Hemert, Judith R. L. M. Wolf |
| Abstract |
To examine the effectiveness of critical time intervention (CTI)-an evidence-based intervention-for abused women transitioning from women's shelters to community living. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in nine women's shelters across the Netherlands. 136 women were assigned to CTI (n = 70) or care-as-usual (n = 66). Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat three-level mixed-effects models. Women in the CTI group had significant fewer symptoms of post-traumatic stress (secondary outcome) (adjusted mean difference - 7.27, 95% CI - 14.31 to - 0.22) and a significant fourfold reduction in unmet care needs (intermediate outcome) (95% CI 0.06-0.94) compared to women in the care-as-usual group. No differences were found for quality of life (primary outcome), re-abuse, symptoms of depression, psychological distress, self-esteem (secondary outcomes), family support, and social support (intermediate outcomes). This study shows that CTI is effective in a population of abused women in terms of a reduction of post-traumatic stress symptoms and unmet care needs. Because follow-up ended after the prescribed intervention period, further research is needed to determine the full long-term effects of CTI in this population. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 33% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 3 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 17% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 138 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 18 | 13% |
| Researcher | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 12 | 9% |
| Other | 5 | 4% |
| Other | 19 | 14% |
| Unknown | 54 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 18 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 16 | 12% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 9% |
| Arts and Humanities | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 53 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#3,395,735
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Public Health
#395
of 1,900 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,348
of 450,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Public Health
#7
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,900 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 450,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.