Intimate partner violence discussions in the healthcare setting: A cross-sectional study

Alexa L. Swailes, Erik B. Lehman, Jennifer McCall-Hosenfeld

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended routine intimate partner violence (IPV) screening for reproductive-age women. Given the increased attention paid to IPV on a national scale, and broader recognition of its social and physical implications, we sought to characterize the discussions resulting from routine IPV screening—specifically regarding provider response and patient perceptions. In a cross-sectional analysis, we implemented a survey to examine outcomes of IPV screening, including use of guideline-concordant discussion topics and interventions, as well as patient perception of the encounters. Women aged 18–65 with lifetime history of IPV and a past-year healthcare appointment were recruited from clinics and women's shelters in Pennsylvania. Data collection took place from May 2014–January 2015. Of 253 women, 39% were screened for IPV at a healthcare visit in the year prior to survey administration. Of women who were screened, guideline-concordant discussion topics were employed in 70% of encounters and guideline-concordant interventions were offered in 72% of encounters. 58% of women reported being “extremely” or “very satisfied,” and 53% reported being “extremely” or “very comfortable” with IPV-related discussions. The low rate of screening in this population reiterates the importance of focusing efforts on educating providers on the importance of screening, promoting the availability of community resources, and developing systems-based practices that foster IPV screening, discussion, and referral following disclosure.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)215-220
Number of pages6
JournalPreventive Medicine Reports
Volume8
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2017

Fingerprint

Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Guidelines
Intimate Partner Violence
Disclosure
Advisory Committees
Appointments and Schedules
Referral and Consultation
Population

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Health Informatics
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

@article{286821ed3dbf4db3842ba705038efa43,
title = "Intimate partner violence discussions in the healthcare setting: A cross-sectional study",
abstract = "In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended routine intimate partner violence (IPV) screening for reproductive-age women. Given the increased attention paid to IPV on a national scale, and broader recognition of its social and physical implications, we sought to characterize the discussions resulting from routine IPV screening—specifically regarding provider response and patient perceptions. In a cross-sectional analysis, we implemented a survey to examine outcomes of IPV screening, including use of guideline-concordant discussion topics and interventions, as well as patient perception of the encounters. Women aged 18–65 with lifetime history of IPV and a past-year healthcare appointment were recruited from clinics and women's shelters in Pennsylvania. Data collection took place from May 2014–January 2015. Of 253 women, 39{\%} were screened for IPV at a healthcare visit in the year prior to survey administration. Of women who were screened, guideline-concordant discussion topics were employed in 70{\%} of encounters and guideline-concordant interventions were offered in 72{\%} of encounters. 58{\%} of women reported being “extremely” or “very satisfied,” and 53{\%} reported being “extremely” or “very comfortable” with IPV-related discussions. The low rate of screening in this population reiterates the importance of focusing efforts on educating providers on the importance of screening, promoting the availability of community resources, and developing systems-based practices that foster IPV screening, discussion, and referral following disclosure.",
author = "Swailes, {Alexa L.} and Lehman, {Erik B.} and Jennifer McCall-Hosenfeld",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.017",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "8",
pages = "215--220",
journal = "Preventive Medicine Reports",
issn = "2211-3355",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

Intimate partner violence discussions in the healthcare setting : A cross-sectional study. / Swailes, Alexa L.; Lehman, Erik B.; McCall-Hosenfeld, Jennifer.

In: Preventive Medicine Reports, Vol. 8, 01.12.2017, p. 215-220.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Intimate partner violence discussions in the healthcare setting

T2 - A cross-sectional study

AU - Swailes, Alexa L.

AU - Lehman, Erik B.

AU - McCall-Hosenfeld, Jennifer

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended routine intimate partner violence (IPV) screening for reproductive-age women. Given the increased attention paid to IPV on a national scale, and broader recognition of its social and physical implications, we sought to characterize the discussions resulting from routine IPV screening—specifically regarding provider response and patient perceptions. In a cross-sectional analysis, we implemented a survey to examine outcomes of IPV screening, including use of guideline-concordant discussion topics and interventions, as well as patient perception of the encounters. Women aged 18–65 with lifetime history of IPV and a past-year healthcare appointment were recruited from clinics and women's shelters in Pennsylvania. Data collection took place from May 2014–January 2015. Of 253 women, 39% were screened for IPV at a healthcare visit in the year prior to survey administration. Of women who were screened, guideline-concordant discussion topics were employed in 70% of encounters and guideline-concordant interventions were offered in 72% of encounters. 58% of women reported being “extremely” or “very satisfied,” and 53% reported being “extremely” or “very comfortable” with IPV-related discussions. The low rate of screening in this population reiterates the importance of focusing efforts on educating providers on the importance of screening, promoting the availability of community resources, and developing systems-based practices that foster IPV screening, discussion, and referral following disclosure.

AB - In 2013, the United States Preventive Services Task Force recommended routine intimate partner violence (IPV) screening for reproductive-age women. Given the increased attention paid to IPV on a national scale, and broader recognition of its social and physical implications, we sought to characterize the discussions resulting from routine IPV screening—specifically regarding provider response and patient perceptions. In a cross-sectional analysis, we implemented a survey to examine outcomes of IPV screening, including use of guideline-concordant discussion topics and interventions, as well as patient perception of the encounters. Women aged 18–65 with lifetime history of IPV and a past-year healthcare appointment were recruited from clinics and women's shelters in Pennsylvania. Data collection took place from May 2014–January 2015. Of 253 women, 39% were screened for IPV at a healthcare visit in the year prior to survey administration. Of women who were screened, guideline-concordant discussion topics were employed in 70% of encounters and guideline-concordant interventions were offered in 72% of encounters. 58% of women reported being “extremely” or “very satisfied,” and 53% reported being “extremely” or “very comfortable” with IPV-related discussions. The low rate of screening in this population reiterates the importance of focusing efforts on educating providers on the importance of screening, promoting the availability of community resources, and developing systems-based practices that foster IPV screening, discussion, and referral following disclosure.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032991906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032991906&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.017

DO - 10.1016/j.pmedr.2017.10.017

M3 - Article

C2 - 29159016

AN - SCOPUS:85032991906

VL - 8

SP - 215

EP - 220

JO - Preventive Medicine Reports

JF - Preventive Medicine Reports

SN - 2211-3355

ER -