Evidence Hub

Advocates, Academics, Survivors and Clinicians to END Intimate Partner Violence (ASCEND-IPV) initiative: a prospective observational case-control study protocol to identify plasma biomarkers of intimate partner violence (IPV)-caused brain injury (BI)

Harper MI, McKinney K, McLennan C, Adhikari SP, Ghodsi M, Cooper JG, Stukas S, Maldonado-Rodroguez N et al.

BMJ open, 2025

600 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Introduction: Although as many as 92% of survivors of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) report impacts to the head and/or non-fatal strangulation (NFS) that raise clinical suspicion of brain injury (BI), there are no evidence-based methods to document and characterise BI in this vulnerable population, limited clinical practice guidelines and insufficient understanding about long-term risks for conditions including Alzheimer's Disease and Related Dementias (ADRD). This leaves most survivors of IPV-caused BI (IPV-BI), overwhelmingly women, without adequate access to medical care and support, safe housing, back-to-school/work accommodations or follow-up care for long-term neurocognitive health. Although traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an established ADRD risk factor, little is known about the attributable risk of ADRD due to IPV-BI, particularly in women.

Methods of analysis: Our overarching objectives are to (1) use plasma biomarkers as novel tools to assist clinicians to improve diagnosis of IPV-BI at the acute, subacute and chronic stages in a manner sensitive to the needs of this vulnerable population and (2) raise awareness of the importance of considering IPV-BI as a potential ADRD risk factor. A prospective observational study funded by the US Department of Defense (HT9425-24-1-0462), Brain Canada (6200) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (523320-NWT-CAAA-37499) leverages collaborative research at multiple clinical sites in British Columbia to maximise…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a clinical trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 600 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free