Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W64191> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W64191 endingPage "56" @default.
- W64191 startingPage "1" @default.
- W64191 abstract "Sexual assault nurse examiners (SANE) or Forensic nurse examiners (FNE) are fully qualified nurses, trained to gather forensic evidence in rape and sexual assault cases. This review compares the reliability and efficacy of FNE/SANE health professionals with that of doctors. FNE/SANE provides cheaper services and better clinical care. However, more research is needed, as the evidence base is weak. Treatment by forensic nurses results in better outcomes than treatment by doctors in a number of cases. Complainants receive better medical care: they are more likely to have a forensic examination (rape kit) and to have it documented, and they are more likely to receive STI and pregnancy prophylaxis than those in the non‐SANE group. More rape kits in the SANE group were admissible as evidence in court from complainants handled by forensic nurses than doctors. However, no difference was found in conviction or prosecution rates. There was no data available on the complainant quality of life. Sexual assault nurse examiners are less expensive than their doctor counterparts. Abstract BACKGROUND Within the UK, the complainants of rape and sexual assault are typically referred to regional sexual assault referral centres (SARCs) where their medical and psychological needs are addressed and, if they consent, a forensic medical examination will be conducted, usually by a forensic physician. In the USA, this service is typically nurse‐led. OBJECTIVES To compare the reliability and efficacy of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs)/Forensic Nurse Examiners (FNEs) with that of non‐SANE health professionals in the conduct of the forensic medical examination and the collection of forensic evidence (rape kit) from the complainants of rape and sexual assault. The following outcomes are used to quantify the efficacy of the SANEs: complainant quality of life, conviction and prosecution rates, complainant mortality within 30 days, time from complaint to examination, provision of STI, pregnancy and HIV prophylaxis, collection and documentation of rape kits and forensic examination, number of rape kits admissible as evidence, and the average cost per case. SEARCH STRATEGY The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, PsychInfo, BNI, Health Business Elite, HMIC, Social Policy and Practice, Google Scholar , and the Scientific Citation Index. Relevant studies were selected by two independent reviewers and no restrictions were placed on either the year or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA This review included studies comparing outcomes for complainants of rape and/or sexual assault who were treated by a SANE, with those treated by a non‐SANE health professional, irrespective of the study design and the age of the complainants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two reviewers were involved in the data collection and analysis. Risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated with both the random‐effects and fixed‐effects model using RevMan 5.1 software. Where differences were noted between the results, both models have been reported. Where no significant differences have been found, only the results from the random‐effects model are reported (data from both models can be found in Appendix 1). RESULTS A total of eight studies were included in the systematic review, six of which were included in the meta‐analysis. This provided an overall sample size of 2700 complainants; 1223 complainants were examined by a SANE (SANE group) and 1477 were examined by a non‐SANE health professional (non‐SANE group). No data were available on complainant quality of life. Two studies compared the conviction and prosecution rates, with no significant differences found (relative risk (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.55 and RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.48 respectively). Significantly more rape kits in the SANE group were admissible as evidence in court (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.35). No data were reported for 30‐day mortality or time from complaint to examination. In terms of clinical care, complainants in the SANE group were significantly more likely to have received STI and pregnancy prophylaxis than those in the non‐SANE group (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13 and RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.46 respectively). No significant differences were found regarding the provision of HIV prophylaxis (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.89). Using a fixed‐effects model, complainants in the SANE group were significantly more likely both to have a forensic examination (rape kit) and to have it documented (RR 3.94, 95% CI 3.21 to 4.84 and RR 3.21, 95% CI 2.71 to 3.80 respectively). However, the results were not significant with a random‐effects meta‐analysis (RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.21 to 36.38 and RR 2.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 8.01). In terms of cost, the SANEs were found, on average, to be £68 cheaper per case than their physician counterparts. Confidence interval data were not available for this outcome and it is not clear if this difference is significant. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS While there does not appear to be any benefit gained in terms of prosecution and conviction by substituting forensic doctors with forensic nurse examiners (FNEs), the FNEs do seem to be statistically significantly better in the provision of clinical care and are able to provide a cheaper service than that led by physicians. However, due to the limited data available to this review, it should be borne in mind that the evidence base for these conclusions is very weak, and, without further research, should not necessarily be used to form the basis for any significant services changes." @default.
- W64191 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W64191 creator A5006013746 @default.
- W64191 creator A5048935246 @default.
- W64191 date "2014-01-01" @default.
- W64191 modified "2023-10-01" @default.
- W64191 title "Forensic Nurse Examiners versus Doctors for the Forensic Examination of Rape and Sexual Assault Complainants: A Systematic Review" @default.
- W64191 cites W124082647 @default.
- W64191 cites W1964617479 @default.
- W64191 cites W1970403683 @default.
- W64191 cites W1983075950 @default.
- W64191 cites W2025736214 @default.
- W64191 cites W2026852699 @default.
- W64191 cites W2026955240 @default.
- W64191 cites W2038699642 @default.
- W64191 cites W2040841503 @default.
- W64191 cites W2045110671 @default.
- W64191 cites W2083723559 @default.
- W64191 cites W2084743956 @default.
- W64191 cites W2086148792 @default.
- W64191 cites W2087019377 @default.
- W64191 cites W2089972432 @default.
- W64191 cites W2098621270 @default.
- W64191 cites W2104394301 @default.
- W64191 cites W2107176258 @default.
- W64191 cites W2107328434 @default.
- W64191 cites W2123451784 @default.
- W64191 cites W2126868322 @default.
- W64191 cites W2126930838 @default.
- W64191 cites W2131009001 @default.
- W64191 cites W2134878967 @default.
- W64191 cites W2142013884 @default.
- W64191 cites W2148652787 @default.
- W64191 cites W2165798400 @default.
- W64191 cites W2356110673 @default.
- W64191 cites W4239790757 @default.
- W64191 cites W4244909335 @default.
- W64191 doi "https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2014.5" @default.
- W64191 hasPublicationYear "2014" @default.
- W64191 type Work @default.
- W64191 sameAs 64191 @default.
- W64191 citedByCount "2" @default.
- W64191 countsByYear W641912020 @default.
- W64191 countsByYear W641912022 @default.
- W64191 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W64191 hasAuthorship W64191A5006013746 @default.
- W64191 hasAuthorship W64191A5048935246 @default.
- W64191 hasBestOaLocation W641911 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C140505726 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C159110408 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C2776135927 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C2779456903 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C2909307065 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C2994210853 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C3017944768 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C42972112 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C526869908 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C545542383 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C77595967 @default.
- W64191 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C118552586 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C127413603 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C140505726 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C15744967 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C159110408 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C17744445 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C199539241 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C2776135927 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C2779456903 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C2909307065 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C2994210853 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C3017944768 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C42972112 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C512399662 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C526869908 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C545542383 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C71924100 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C77595967 @default.
- W64191 hasConceptScore W64191C97460637 @default.
- W64191 hasIssue "1" @default.
- W64191 hasLocation W641911 @default.
- W64191 hasLocation W641912 @default.
- W64191 hasOpenAccess W64191 @default.
- W64191 hasPrimaryLocation W641911 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2031457579 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2230131814 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2265419970 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2411004607 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2766025337 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W2923350807 @default.
- W64191 hasRelatedWork W3094428804 @default.