Screening for intimate partner violence in orthopedic patients: a comparison of three screening tools

Accurately identifying victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) can be a challenge for clinicians and clinical researchers. Multiple instruments have been developed and validated to identify IPV in patients presenting to health care practitioners, including the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and the Partner Violence Screen (PVS). The purpose of the current study is to determine if female patients attending an outpatient orthopaedic fracture clinic who screen positive for IPV using three direct questions (direct questioning) also screen positive on the WAST and PVS. We conducted a prevalence study at two Level I trauma centres to determine the prevalence of IPV in female patients presenting to orthopaedic fracture clinics for treatment of injuries. We used three methods to determine the prevalence of IPV; 1) direct questioning, 2) WAST, and 3) PVS. We compared the prevalence rates across the three screening tools. Ninety-four women screened positive for IPV using any method. The prevalence of IPV was 30.5% when a direct questioning approach was utilized, 12.4% using the WAST, and 9.2% using the PVS. The WAST identified 37.2% (35/94) of the IPV victims detected and the PVS identified 27.7% (53/94) of the IPV victims detected, whereas direct questioning identified 89.4% of the IPV victims. Identification of IPV may be under-estimated by the WAST and PVS screening tools. Our findings suggest direct questioning may increase the frequency of disclosure of IPV among women attending outpatient orthopaedic clinics.     

Genscher and what lies behind ‘Genscherism’

This article analyses the factors which have contributed to West Germany's decision to oppose the modernisation of short‐range nuclear missilesin 1989 and focuses on the likely impact Hans‐Dietrich Genscher had on this decision. By considering both West German domestic conditions (value changes, mass perceptions of détente, and party‐political consensus on Ostpolitik) and external factors (changing superpower relations, reforms in Eastern Europe, and European Community progress), it is argued that Genscher is neither the single architect of, nor the sole influence on, West Germany's security policy‐making.     

Unrecognized states as a means of coercive diplomacy? Assessing the role of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Russia’s foreign policy in the South Caucasus

The scholarship on unrecognized or de facto states has been booming in the recent decades exploring this phenomenon from a variety of perspectives. Yet, as this article illustrates, a crucial accent on the instrumentalization of unrecognized states by regional actors – or, to put it differently, on unrecognized states as a source of coercive diplomacy – has been neglected. This article seeks to fill that gap by offering an empirical analysis of Russia’s instrumentalization of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as unrecognized states as a means of putting effective pressure on the Government in Tbilisi – usually with respect to issues unrelated to the unrecognized states themselves. More specifically, this article shows that Moscow has used three instruments (military deployment, passportization of residents of the unrecognized states and responsibility to protect).     

The future Germany and the future of NATO

The events of 1989 have raised questions about NATO's future and purpose. Two different views are held by Germany and the USA. The Germans seek the political and economic unification of the EC, the construction of a European pillar within a demilitarised NATO, and a pan‐European collective security system. In contrast, the Americans seek to preserve NATO as a military alliance responsible for western European security under American leadership and to equip NATO with competences extending beyond the NA TO area. Whilst insisting on greater western European burden sharing and security coordination, the Americans see the roles of the CSCE and the WEU as complementary to NATO's.     

The Internationalisation of the Russian–Chechen Conflict: Myths and Reality

The article provides a critical reading of various related discourses, depicting the political motives behind the conflict in Chechnya as a battlefield of the global jihad. These narratives have sought to present the involvement of external Islamist groups as a major factor in the conflict, and to portray many of the main groups within Chechnya as subscribing to a jihadist ideology. The authors suggest an alternative narrative focusing on the significance of the blood feud in the societies of the North Caucasus. It is argued that it is necessary to differentiate between the radicalisation of the resistance as such and the strengthening of the ideology of jihad. It is concluded that the resistance currently assumes a supranational character, yet one which is delimited regionally rather than globally.     

Survived crossbow injuries

The Hamburg University Institute of Legal Medicine presents 2 cases of injuries of crossbow arrows where the patients survived. Crossbows are used nowadays as sports and hunting weapons. They are freely obtainable, and since people without practice can shoot them, there are constant injuries and fatal cases. Crossbow arrows have a high penetration force and can even pierce bone. Depending on the tip of the arrow used, they bore or cut through tissue, here damage to the tissue being restricted to the direct surroundings. Due to the elasticity of the tissue, the arrow shaft in the wound track may have the effect of an incomplete tamponade so that major hemorrhaging is prevented. In this condition, the injured person may be conscious and capacitated. From the medical viewpoint, crossbow arrows should therefore be invariably left in the wound, secured against displacement during transport, and only removed in the hospital.     

Ethnicity and conflict severity: accounting for the effect of co-ethnic and non-ethnic militias on battlefield lethality

How does the presence of armed pro-regime groups affect conflict lethality? This study examines the relationship between ethnicity, militia violence and conflict lethality in civil wars. We emphasise that differences in whether pro-regime militias were recruited in accordance with their ethnicity or not are critical in their influence upon conflict lethality, which we estimate in battlefield deaths. To that end, we categorise militias into groups recruited on their ethnic basis (co-ethnic militias) and those recruited regardless of their ethnicity (non-ethnic militias). We hypothesise that conflicts are more lethal when non-ethnic militias are involved. We link higher number of battle-deaths in conflicts with non-ethnic militias with the militia use of one-sided violence against civilians. Co-ethnic militias – that is militias recruited from the same ethnicity as rebels – are deployed amongst their co-ethnics and therefore tend to target civilians less than non-ethnic militias. This militia–civilian relationship has direct impact on conflict severity. To test our hypotheses we conduct global statistical analysis of 84 intrastate conflicts from 1989 to 2014.