Evaluation of a two-question screening tool in the detection of intimate partner violence in a primary healthcare setting in South Africa

Figures & data

Table 1: Participants according to age groups and IPV result

Age group	19–29	30–39	40–49	50–59	60–69	70–79	Total
Positive result for IPV screening	7 (11.9%)	8 (13.6%)	12 (20.3%)	24 (40.7%)	6 (10.2%)	2 (3.4%)	59
Negative result for IPV screening	72 (21.1%)	64 (18.8%)	79 (23.2%)	74 (21.7%)	41 (12%)	11 (3.2%)	341
Total, n (%)	79 (19.8%)	72 (18%)	91 (22.8%)	98 (24.5%)	47 (11.8%)	13 (3.3%)	400 (100%)

Table 2: Level of education

Level of education	Participants	Partners
No formal schooling	11 (2.8%)	14 (3.5%)
Primary (until grade 6)	57 (14.3%)	43 (10.8%)
Secondary (Grades 7–11)	221 (55.3%)	214 (53.5%)
Grade 12	105 (26.3%)	119 (29.8%)
Post-secondary education (degree/diploma)	6 (1.5%)	10 (2.5%)
Total	400 (100%)	400 (100%)

Table 3: Source of income and IPV

Source of income	Employed	Social Grant	Supported from partner	Support from Family	Total
Positive result for IPV (participant)	28 (47.5%)	17 (28.8%)	11 (18.6%)	3 (0.1%)	59
Negative result for IPV (participant)	165 (48.4%)	81 (23.8%)	67 (16.8%)	28 (8.2%)	341
Total	193 (48.3%)	98 (24.5%)	78 (19.5%)	31 (7.8%)	400 (100%)
Positive result for IPV (partner)	49 (83%)	0	6 (10.2%)	4 (6.8%)	59
Negative result for IPV (partner)	252 (73.9%)	7 (2.1%)	53 (15.5%)	29 (8.5%)	341
Total	301 (75.3%)	7 (1.8%)	59 (14.8%)	33 (8.3%)	400 (100%)

Table 4: Level of education and IPV

Level of education		No formal education	Primary until Grade 6	Secondary: Grades 7–11	Grade 12	Post-secondary education
Positive result, n (%)	Participants	2 (3.4%)	12 (20.3%)	31 (52.5%)	13 (22%)	1 (1.7%)
	Partners	6 (10.2%)	8 (13.6%)	32 (54.2%)	11 (18.6%)	2 (3.4%)
Negative result for IPV screening	Participants	9 (2.6%)	4.5 (13.2%)	190 (55.1%)	92 (27%)	5 (15%)
	Partners	8 (2.3%)	35 (8.8%)	182 (53.4%)	108 (31.7%)	8 (2.5%)

Table 5: Housing, language used to complete the questionnaire and relationship status vs. IPV result

Factor	Type of housing		Language of questionnaire			Relationship Status
	Formal	Informal	English	Sesotho	isiZulu	Married	Steady Partner	Living with Partner
Positive for IPV screen	46 (78%)	13 (22%)	35 (59.5%)	23 (39%)	1 (1.7%)	34 (57.6%)	12 (20.3%)	13 (22%)
Negative for IPV screen	273 (80%)	68 (19.9%)	191 (56%)	121 (35.5%)	29 (8.5%)	169 (49.6%)	89 (26.1%)	83 (24.3%)

Table 6: Comparison of the two-question screening tool (WAST–short) and WAST–long

WAST–long WAST–short	Total score ≥ 13	Total score ˂ 13	Total
Positive	58	1	59
Negative	71	270	341
Total	129	271	400

Table 7: Cross-break: responses to screening questions among participants with WAST–long scores ≥ 13 (n = 129)

Question 1	Question 2				Total (n)
		No difficulty (n)	Some difficulty (n)	Great difficulty (n)
	No tension (n)	3	4	0	7
	Some tension (n)	6	40	4	50
	A lot of tension (n)	2	12	58	72
Total (n)		11	56	62	129

Table 8: Results for participants who scored ≥ 13 on WAST–long (n = 129)

WAST–long total score	Screen negative with WAST–short, n = 71	Screen positive with WAST–short, n = 58	Number of participants (n = 129)
13	19 (26.8%)	2 (3.4%)	21 (16.3%)
14	26 (36.6%)	3 (5.2%)	29 (22.5%)
15	11 (15.5%)	1 (1.7%)	12 (9.3%)
16	5 (7%)	5 (8.6%)	10 (7.8%)
17	5 (7%)	5 (8.6%)	10 (7.8%)
18	3 (4.2%)	7 (12.1%)	10 (7.8%)
19	0	4 (6.9%)	4 (3.1%)
20	1 (1.4%)	4 (6.9%)	5 (3.9%)
21	1 (1.4%)	7 (12.1%)	8 (6.2%)
22	0	10 (17.2%)	10 (7.8%)
23	0	4 (6.9%)	4 (3.1%)
24	0	6 (10.3%)	6 (4.7%)
Total	71 (100%)	58 (100%)	129 (100%)

Table 9: Analysis of cut-off scores for WAST–short

Cut-off score	Sensitivity (%)	Specificity (%)	PPV (%)	NPV (%)	LR (+)	LR (-)
5	57.4	98.9	96.1	83.1	52.6	0.43
4	89.9	86.7	76.1	94.8	6.8	0.12
3	97.7	63.5	55.7	98.3	2.7	0.04

Figure 1: Distribution of participants on comparing WAST–short and WAST–long results using the cut-off score of 4.