Disclosing intimate partner violence to health care clinicians - What a difference the setting makes: A qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite endorsement by national organizations, the impact of screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) is understudied, particularly as it occurs in different clinical settings. We analyzed interviews of IPV survivors to understand the risks and benefits of disclosing IPV to clinicians across specialties.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were English-speaking female IPV survivors recruited through IPV programs in Massachusetts. In-depth interviews describing medical encounters related to abuse were analyzed for common themes using Grounded Theory qualitative research methods. Encounters with health care clinicians were categorized by outcome (IPV disclosure by patient, discovery evidenced by discussion of IPV by clinician without patient disclosure, or non-disclosure), attribute (beneficial, unhelpful, harmful), and specialty (emergency department (ED), primary care (PC), obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN)).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 27 participants aged 18–56, 5 were white, 10 Latina, and 12 black. Of 59 relevant health care encounters, 23 were in ED, 17 in OB/GYN, and 19 in PC. Seven of 9 ED disclosures were characterized as unhelpful; the majority of disclosures in PC and OB/GYN were characterized as beneficial. There were no harmful disclosures in any setting. Unhelpful disclosures resulted in emotional distress and alienation from health care. Regardless of whether disclosure occurred, beneficial encounters were characterized by familiarity with the clinician, acknowledgement of the abuse, respect and relevant referrals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>While no harms resulted from IPV disclosure, survivor satisfaction with disclosure is shaped by the setting of the encounter. Clinicians should aim to build a therapeutic relationship with IPV survivors that empowers and educates patients and does not demand disclosure.</p

Maxillofacial injuries associated with intimate partner violence in women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The facial region has been the most common site of injury following violent episodes. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence and pattern of maxillofacial injuries associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) in women treated at a single facility in Malaysia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A retrospective review of 242 hospital records of female IPV victims who were seen at the One-Stop Crisis Centre (OSCC) in Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Kelantan over a two-year period (January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2006) was performed. A structured form was used for data collection. Information regarding the anatomical sites of injuries, types of injuries, and mechanisms of assault were obtained.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Most victims were married (85.1%), were injured by the husband (83.5%), and had at least one previous IPV episode (85.5%). Injury to the maxillofacial region was the most common (50.4%), followed by injury to the limbs (47.9%). In 122 cases of maxillofacial injuries, the middle of the face was most frequently affected (60.6%), either alone or in combination with the upper or lower third of the face. Injury to soft tissues (contusions, abrasions and lacerations) was the most common (87.7%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study indicates there is a high prevalence of maxillofacial injuries associated with IPV among women treated at the OSCC in Kelantan, Malaysia.</p

Screening for Domestic Violence Among Adult Women in the United States

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence is a problem frequently encountered in health care settings and a risk factor for physical and mental health problems. OBJECTIVE: To provide nationally representative estimates of rates of domestic violence screening among women, to identify predictors of screening, and to describe settings where women are screened. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined 4,821 women over the age of 18 from the second wave of Healthcare for Communities, a nationally representative household telephone survey conducted in 2000–2001. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reports concerning whether the respondent was ever asked about domestic or family violence by any health care provider. RESULTS: Only 7% (95% CI, 6%–8%) of women reported they were ever asked about domestic violence or family violence by a health care professional. Of women who were asked about abuse, nearly half (46%) were asked in a primary care setting, and 24% were asked in a specialty mental health setting. Women with risk factors for domestic violence were more likely to report being asked about it by a health care professional, but rates were still low. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported rates of screening for domestic violence are low even among women at higher risk for abuse. These findings reinforce the importance of developing training and raising awareness of domestic violence and its health implications. This is especially true in primary care and mental health specialty settings

Association of various reproductive rights, domestic violence and marital rape with depression among Pakistani women

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Depression among women is common in developing countries. Gender inequality can contribute to women's risk for depression. Lack of reproductive and sexual rights is an important marker of gender inequality and women do not have the freedom to express their reproductive and sexual needs in many parts of the world. Therefore we designed this study to determine the association of depression with lack of various reproductive rights and domestic violence among married women in Karachi, Pakistan.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A case-control study with 152 cases and 152 controls, which included women 15-48 years, recruited from two teaching hospitals from 1^stJune 2007 through 31^stAugust 2007. The SRQ was administered to all subjects. A cut off score of 8 was used to confirm cases of depression diagnosed by physicians, and to exclude cases of depression from the controls. Self-administered questionnaire was used to assess the risk factors.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>61% of the cases and 43% of the controls were ever abused by spouse and the frequency of marital rape was 33% in cases and 13% in controls. After adjusting for the effects of other variables in the model, less than 18 years of age at marriage (OR 2.00; 95% CI = 1.07, 3.7), decision for marriage by parents (OR 3.51; 95% CI = 1.67, 7.37), abuse by in laws (OR 4.91; 95% CI = 2.66, 9.06), ≤ 3 hours per day spent with husband (OR 2.33; 95% CI = 1.34, 4.08), frequency of intercourse ≤ 2 times per week (OR 1.85; 95% CI = 1.06, 3.22) and marital rape (OR 3.03; 95% CI = 1.50, 6.11) were associated with depression among women.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In our study depression in married women was associated with younger age at marriage, lack of autonomy in marriage decisions, marital rape and domestic abuse by in-laws. Efforts should be directed towards creating awareness about the reproductive and sexual rights of women in Pakistan. Physicians should be trained to screen and identify women who may be at risk for psychological distress as a result of denial of reproductive rights so that they can support positive mental health outcomes through individual, family or marital counseling.</p

Intimate Partner Violence and Health Care-Seeking Patterns Among Female Users of Urban Adolescent Clinics

To assess the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) and associations with health care-seeking patterns among female patients of adolescent clinics, and to examine screening for IPV and IPV disclosure patterns within these clinics. A self-administered, anonymous, computerized survey was administered to female clients ages 14–20 years (N = 448) seeking care in five urban adolescent clinics, inquiring about IPV history, reasons for seeking care, and IPV screening by and IPV disclosure to providers. Two in five (40%) female urban adolescent clinic patients had experienced IPV, with 32% reporting physical and 21% reporting sexual victimization. Among IPV survivors, 45% reported abuse in their current or most recent relationship. IPV prevalence was equally high among those visiting clinics for reproductive health concerns as among those seeking care for other reasons. IPV victimization was associated with both poor current health status (AOR 1.57, 95% CI 1.03–2.40) and having foregone care in the past year (AOR 2.59, 95% CI 1.20–5.58). Recent IPV victimization was associated only with past 12 month foregone care (AOR 2.02, 95% CI 1.18–3.46). A minority (30%) reported ever being screened for IPV in a clinical setting. IPV victimization is pervasive among female adolescent clinic attendees regardless of visit type, yet IPV screening by providers appears low. Patients reporting poor health status and foregone care are more likely to have experienced IPV. IPV screening and interventions tailored for female patients of adolescent clinics are needed

Intimate partner violence among pregnant women in Rwanda

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Intimate partner violence (IPV), defined as actual or threatened physical, sexual, psychological, and emotional abuse by current or former partners is a global public health concern. The prevalence and determinants of intimate partner violence (IPV) against pregnant women has not been described in Rwanda. A study was conducted to identify variables associated with IPV among Rwandan pregnant women.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A convenient sample of 600 pregnant women attending antenatal clinics were administered a questionnaire which included items on demographics, HIV status, IPV, and alcohol use by the male partner. Mean age and proportions of IPV in different groups were assessed. Odds of IPV were estimated using logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of the 600 respondents, 35.1% reported IPV in the last 12 months. HIV+ pregnant women had higher rates of all forms of IVP violence than HIV- pregnant women: pulling hair (44.3% vs. 20.3%), slapping (32.0% vs. 15.3%), kicking with fists (36.3% vs. 19.7%), throwing to the ground and kicking with feet (23.3% vs. 12.7%), and burning with hot liquid (4.1% vs. 3.5%). HIV positive participants were more than twice likely to report physical IPV than those who were HIV negative (OR = 2.38; 95% CI [1.59, 3.57]). Other factors positively associated with physical IPV included sexual abuse before the age of 14 years (OR = 2.69; 95% CI [1.69, 4.29]), having an alcohol drinking male partner (OR = 4.10; 95% CI [2.48, 6.77] for occasional drinkers and OR = 3.37; 95% CI [2.05, 5.54] for heavy drinkers), and having a male partner with other sexual partners (OR = 1.53; 95% CI [1.15, 2.20]. Education was negatively associated with lifetime IPV.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have reported on prevalence of IPV violence among pregnant women attending antenatal care in Rwanda, Central Africa. We advocate that screening for IPV be an integral part of HIV and AIDS care, as well as routine antenatal care. Services for battered women should also be made available.</p

A knowledge, attitudes, and practice survey among obstetrician-gynaecologists on intimate partner violence in Flanders, Belgium

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) has consistently been found to afflict one in twenty pregnant women and is therefore considered a leading cause of physical injury, mental illness and adverse pregnancy outcome. A general antenatal screening policy has been advocated, though compliance with such guidelines tends to be low. We therefore attempted to identify potential barriers to IPV screening in a context where no guidelines have been instigated yet. METHODS: Questionnaire-based Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice survey among obstetrician-gynaecologists in Flanders, Belgium (n = 478). RESULTS: The response rate was 52.1% (249/478). Gynaecologists prove rather unfamiliar with IPV and therefore largely underestimate the extent of the problem. Merely 6.8% (17/249) of the respondents ever received or pursued any kind of education on IPV. Accordingly they do feel insufficiently skilled to deal with IPV, yet sufficiently capable of recognizing IPV among their patients. Survey participants largely refute the incentive of universal screening in favour of opportunistic screening and do not consider pregnancy as a window of opportunity for routine screening. They do consider screening for IPV as an issue of medical liability and therefore do not suffer from a lack of motivation to screen. In addition, obstetrician-gynaecologists do believe that screening for IPV may be an effective means to counteract abusive behaviours. Yet, their outcome expectancy is weighed down by their perceived lack of self-efficacy in dealing with IPV, by lack of familiarity with referral procedures and by their perceived lack of available referral services. Major external or patient-related barriers to IPV screening included a perceived lack of time and fear of offending or insulting patients. Overall, merely 8.4 % (21/245) of gynaecologists in this survey performed some kind of IPV questioning on a regular basis. Finally, physician education was found to be the strongest predictor of a positive attitude towards screening and of current screening practices. CONCLUSION: Endorsement of physician training on IPV is an important first step towards successful implementation of screening guidelines for IPV. Additional introduction of enabling and reinforcement strategies such as screening tools, patient leaflets, formal referral pathways, and physician feedback may further enhance compliance with screening recommendations and guidelines