Nine studies were included (n=5,922 women). These included one randomised controlled trial (RCT, n=871), one cluster RCT (n=2,461), one quasi-experimental study (n=1,013) and six descriptive studies (n=1,577).
IPV prevalence: This ranged from 1% to 19%. Physical IPV prevalence rates ranged from 16% to 19% with CASI and from under 1% to 11.2% with written or interview screening (two studies). Physical, sexual and emotional IPV prevalence rates ranged from 10.1% to 17.6% with CASI (three studies) and from 1% to 14.6% with control (four studies). In all but one study, the prevalence with CASI was higher than with the alternative formats.
Most studies were not conducted anonymously, but the authors reported that this did not appear to influence IPV prevalence rates identified using CASI. One of two studies in women experiencing IPV associated anonymity with higher honesty.
Acceptability of screening methods: Seven studies reported favourable comments about the acceptability of CASI screening. Two of three studies in women experiencing IPV reported greater benefits and acceptability of CASI.
Referrals: Computer prompts increased the likelihood of providers discussing IPV with women (three studies), but the percentage who did discuss IPV with patients was low (8% and 10% with CASI compared with less than 1% with usual screening, two studies). Women were more likely to initiate discussion about IPV after taking part in CASI screening (one study).