Introduction Hospital-based violence intervention programmes (HBVIPs) are a promising strategy to reduce trauma recidivism and promote safety among victims of violent injury. While previous studies have demonstrated cost-effectiveness and positive impact on the lives of victims, there are a number of key limitations in the study designs of this evidence base. This study seeks to address the methodological shortcomings of previous research, determine the efficacy of HBVIPs using a randomised control study design, and provide a better understanding of successful service allocation within an HBVIP.
Methods and analysis The current study is 1 of 12 demonstration projects being implemented around the country with the purpose of bolstering the ability to provide effective, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed services for boys and men harmed by violence. We propose a randomised control trial in which male victims of violence receive one of two interventions: treatment as usual versus enhanced services. The purpose is to determine which intervention leads to reductions in trauma recidivism over the period of 1 year from contact with the programme. Differences will also be monitored on measures of mental health, quality of life and attitudes towards violence. Analyses employed will include Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox proportional hazards regression with death and recidivism being the outcomes of interest.
Ethics and dissemination Study procedures have been approved by the Institutional Review Boards of the University at Buffalo and four hospitals. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.
- penetrating injury
- public health
- implementation / translation
- randomised trial
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Funding This study was funded by the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants and the authors of the manuscript have no competing interests to report. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at the MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Howard University Hospital and the University at Buffalo (SUNY).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research. Refer to the Methods section for further details.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval The study received IRB approval.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Data availability statement No data are available.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.