Skip to main content

Table 1 Summary of characteristics of citing sources

From: Exploring the uptake and framing of research evidence on universal screening for intimate partner violence against women: a knowledge translation case study

Source type

n (% of 112 sources)

Research article

56 (50%)

Commentary

16 (14.3%)

Books or book chapters

12 (10.7%)

News reports

9 (8%)

Practice guidelines

4 (3.6%)

Grey literature (e.g., government) reports

5 (4.5%)

Literature review (non-systematic)

4 (3.6%)

Literature review (systematic)

4 (3.6%)

Other

2 (1.8%)

Source content regarding IPV screening

n (%) (of 112)

IPV Screening focus (yes)

55 (49.1%)

Define screening (yes)

13 (11.6%)

Support universal screening

35 (31.3%)

Do not support universal screening

28 (25%)

Unable to determine/no position on screening

49 (43.8%)

Times citing trial (within source) (range 1–5)

n (%) (of 112)

Once

90 (80.4%)

2-3 times

21 (18.8%)

5 times

1 (0.9%)

Citation location (within source)

n (% of 147 total extractions)

Discussion

49 (33.3%)

Introduction/Background

35 (23.8%)

Method

4 (2.7%)

Results

4 (2.7%)

Unable to specify (non-sectioned source)

55 (37.4%)