Gebelikte Şiddet: Türkiye' de Ölçek Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik Çalışması

Öz

Amaç: Kadınlar gebelik ve doğum sonrası dönemde şiddete daha açık ve bu dönemlerde şiddete daha sık maruz kalmaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, gebelikte şiddet taramasında en sık kullanılan İstismar Değerlendirme Ölçeği (İDÖ/AAS) ve Aile İçi Şiddeti Tarama Ölçeği (AİŞTÖ/ HITS) ölçeklerini Türkçe’ ye uyarlamak ve faktör yapısını incelemektir. Yöntem: Bu metodolojik ve tanımlayıcı çalışmaya Türkiye'de bir kamu hastanesinde yatan 259 gebe dâhil edildi. Veriler, iki yazar tarafından tanımlayıcı bir bilgi formu, AAS ve HITS ölçekleri kullanılarak toplandı. Veriler, içerik geçerliği için sırasıyla Kendall's W analizi, Cronbach’salpha değeri katsayısı ve Pearsonkorelasyon analizi, kullanılarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular: AAS ölçeğinin güvenirlik katsayısı KR20=0,801 ve HITS ölçeğinin Cronbach’salpha katsayısı 0,86 olup, yüksek güvenilirliğin bir göstergesidir. Ölçeklerin geçerliliğini test etmek için yapılan açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonucuna göre AAS (%77,36) ve HITS (%75,12) ölçekleri için faktör yükü uygun değerde bulundu. Olguyu ölçütlere göre açıklamak için her iki ölçekte de bir faktörün yeterli olduğu belirlendi. Sonuç: AAS ve HITS ölçeklerinin Türkçe uyarlamalarının yüksek düzeyde geçerlik ve güvenirliğe sahip olduğu belirlendi. AAS ve HITS ölçekleri, farklı kültürlerde geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik çalışmaları ile gebelikte aile içi şiddet olaylarının hızlı, kolay ve etkin bir şekilde belirlenmesinde güvenli bir araç olarak kullanılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Gebelik
• şiddet
• istismar
• Türkçe geçerlik ve güvenirlik

Violence in Pregnancy: Scale Validity and Reliability Study in Turkey

Öz

Objective: Women are more vulnerable to violence during pregnancy and the postnatal period and they are more often subject to violence during these periods. The purpose of this study was to adapt the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) and the Tool for Intimate Partner Violence Screening (HITS), which are most frequently used in screening for violence in pregnancy, into Turkish and to examine the factor structure. Methods: This methodological and descriptive study included 259 pregnant women in a public hospital in Turkey. Data were collected using a descriptive information form, and Turkish language versions of the AAS and HITS tools. These translations were performed with usual rigor. Data were evaluated using Kendall’s W analysis, Cronbach’s alpha value coefficient and Pearson’s correlation analysis. Results: The reliability coefficient of the AAS scale was KR20=0.801 and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the HITS scale was 0.86, an indication of high reliability. According to the results of the exploratory factor analysis performed to test the validity of the scales, the factor load for the AAS (77.36%) and HITS (75.12%) scales was found to be appropriate. There were found that one factor was sufficient for explaining the case according to criterion. Conclusion: AAS and HITS scales can be used as a safe tool with validity and reliability studies in different cultures to quickly, easily and effectively identify domestic violence events during pregnancy. The Turkish adaptations of the AAS and HITS scales were determined to have a high degree of validity and reliability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Pregnancy
• violence
• abuse
• Turkish validity and reliability

Kaynakça

1. WHO. Violence against women. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ violence-against-women. Published 2021. Accessed March 11, 2021.
2. Ayrancı Ü, Günay Y, Ünlüoğlu İ. Spouse violence during pregnancy: A research among women attending to primary health care. Anatol J Psychiatry. 2002;3(April):75-87.
3. McCauley M, Head J, Lambert J, Zafar S, van den Broek N. “Keeping family matters behind closed doors”: Healthcare providers’ perceptions and experiences of identifying and managing domestic violence during and after pregnancy. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017;17(1):1-8. doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1520-4
4. Şen S, Egelioğlu N, Kavlak O, Sevil Ü. Determination of awareness of health professionals about violence during pregnancy. Int J Hum Sci. 2014;7(1):1-171.
5. Van Parys AS, Verhamme A, Temmerman M, Verstraelen H. Intimate partner violence and pregnancy: A systematic review of interventions. PLoS One. 2014;9(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0085084
6. Smith R, Wight R, Homer CSE. ‘Asking the hard questions’: Improving midwifery students’ confidence with domestic violence screening in pregnancy. Nurse EducPract.2018;28:27-33. doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2017.05.006
7. United Nations. Declaration on the elimination of violence against women. https:// www. ohchr.org /EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/ViolenceAgainstWomen.aspx. Published 1993. Accessed June 12, 2020.
8. Freed D, Palmer J, Minchala D, Levy K, Ristenpart T, Dell N. Digital technologies and intimate partner violence: A qualitative analysis with multiple stakeholders. Proc ACM Human-Computer Interact. 2017;1(CSCW):1-22. doi:10.1145/3134681

9. Karystianis G, Adily A, Schofield PW, et al. Automated analysis of domestic violence police reports to explore abuse types and victim injuries: Text mining study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(3):1-12. doi:10.2196/13067
10. Zahir Ali A, Hussain Ali N. Teen dating violence. Int J Women Empower. 2015;1(1):30. doi:10.29052/2413-4252.v1.i1.2015.30-32
11. Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies. Domestic Violence against Women in Turkey. 2014. doi:10.12669/pjms.343.15139
12. O’Reilly R. Domestic violence against women in their childbearing years: A review of the literature. Contemp Nurse. 2007;25((1–2)):13–21. doi: https: // doi.org/ 10.5172/conu.2007.25.1-2.13
13. WHO. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. 2013. https:// www. who. int/ publications/ i/item/9789241564625.
14. Audi CAFA, Segall-Corrêa AM, Santiago SM, Andrade M da GG, Pérez-Escamilla R. Violence against pregnant women: prevalence and associated factors. Rev SaúdePública. 2008;42(5):1-9.
15. Sahin S, İlçioğlu K, Unsal A. Domestic violence, depression and anxiety during pregnancy. Koç Univ Educ Res Nurs. 2017;(April). doi: 10.5222/ head.2017.204
16. Saltzman LE, Johnson CH, Gilbert BC, Goodwin MM. Physical abuse around the time of pregnancy: An examination of prevalence and risk factors in 16 states. Matern Child Health J. 2003;7(1):31-43. doi:10.1023/A:1022589501039
17. Taillieu TL, Brownridge DA. Violence against pregnant women: Prevalence, patterns, risk factors, theories, and directions for future research. Aggress Violent Behav. 2010;15(1):14-35. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.07.013
18. Jesus Almeida FS, Carvalho Coutinho E, Carvalho Duarte J, et al. Domestic violence in pregnancy: Prevalence and characteristics of the pregnant woman. J Clin Nurs. 2017;26(15-16):2417-2425. doi: 10. 1111/ jocn.13756
19. Lee JT, Tsai JL. Transtheoretical Model-based postpartum sexual health education program improves women’s sexual behaviors and sexual health. J Sex Med. 2012; 9(4):986-996. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.20101. 2419.x
20. Sağkal T, Kalkım A, Sülü Uğurlu E, ErsoyKırmızılar N. The situation of pregnant women exposure to violence by husband and the factors associated with violence. TAF Prev Med Bull. 2014;13(2):141-150. doi:10.5455/pmb
21. Baird K, Salmon D, White P. A five year follow-up study of the Bristol pregnancy domestic violence programme to promote routine enquiry. Midwifery. 2013;29(8):1003-1010. doi:10.1016/j.midw.2013.01.007
22. Alan H, Koc G, Taskin L, Eroglu K, Terzioglu F. Exposure of pregnant women to violence by partners and affecting factors in Turkey. Sex Res Soc Policy. 2016;13(2):173-181. doi:10.1007/s13178-015-0195-8
23. Gençer A, Onat T, Başer E, Kara M, Yalvaç ES. Prevalence of violence against pregnant women in Yozgat. Bozok Med J. 2018; 8(2):59-64. doi:10.16919/bozoktip.380184
24. RCM. Violence against women and girls (VAWG). https://www.rcm.org.uk/promoting/professional-practice/violence-women-girls/. Published 2020. Accessed August 13, 2020.
25. Vogel J. Effective gender-based violence screening tools for use in primary health care settings in Afghanistan and Pakistan: A systematic review. East Mediterr Heal J. 2013; 19(3):219-226. doi: 10.26719/2013.19.3.219
26. Brown JB, Lent B, Schmidt G, Sas G. Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-short in the family practice setting. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(10):896-903.
27. Doi S, Fujiwara T, Isumi A. Development of the intimate partner violence during pregnancy instrument (IPVPI). Front Public Heal. 2019;7(MAR):1-9. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00043
28. Rabin RF, Jennings JM, Campbell JC, Bair-Merritt MH. Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools. Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):439-445.e4. doi: 10.1016/ j.amepre. 2009.01.024
29. TGOA. Figocommittee reproductive and women’s health ethical views study. Ethical Studies in Obstetrics and Gynecology. Turkish Gynecology and Obstetrics Association.https://www.tjod.org/obstetrik-ve-jinekolojide- etik-konular/ Published 2008. Accessed August 14, 2019.
30. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, Bullock L. Assessing for abuse during pregnancy. Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry in to prenatal care. JAMA. 1992;267(January):3176–3178. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100368
31. Sherin KM, Sinacore JM, Li XQ, Zitter RE, Shakil A. HITS: A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Fam Med. 1998;30(7):508-512.
32. Özdamar K. Statistical Data Analysis with Package Programs Volume 1. 11th ed. Eskişehir: Nisan Bookstore; 2011.
33. Antoniou E, Ioannidi-Kapolou E, Daglas M, et al. Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) questionnaire: The Greek validation. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2010;37(1).
34. Chen PH, Rovi S, Vega M, Jacobs A, Johnson MS. Screening for domestic violence in a predominantly Hispanic clinical setting. Fam Pract. 2005;22(6):617-623. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi075
35. Chen PH, Rovi S, Washington J, et al. Randomized comparison of 3 methods to screen for domestic violence in family practice. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(5):430-435. doi:10.1370/afm.716