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

Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, 801 Massachusetts Ave, Boston, MA 02118, USA .
BMC Public Health (Impact Factor: 2.32). 02/2008; 8:229. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-229
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.
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)).
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.
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.


Available from: Erin Finley, Jun 02, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization is a major source of morbidity and mortality for women. We know little about the IPV experiences among the growing population of women military veterans in the United States. To address this gap in knowledge, we conducted a retrospective review of medical records of 533 women veteran patients age 55 and younger at a Veterans Affairs (VA) medical center to identify the scope of IPV exposure and associated demographic, health, and health care service use characteristics. Lifetime IPV was documented in one-quarter of women veterans’ medical records and was associated with higher risk of many medical conditions and with more extensive health care service use. We provide recommendations for intervention through the Veterans Health Administration and for future research.
    Military Behavioral Health 07/2013; 1(2):107-113. DOI:10.1080/21635781.2013.830062
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important public health problem, which has been extensively studied all over the world, yet Belgian data are limited. IPV remains a taboo resulting in denial and underreporting. For an obstetrician-gynaecologist (OB/GYN), IPV, committed by a male partner to a woman, is of particular interest, because of its negative impact on women’s and children’s health. In Belgium there are few data on IPV and guidelines for OB/GYN are missing. In a multi-centered survey surveillance study which was carried out among pregnant women attending 5 large hospitals in the province of East Flanders, the lifetime prevalence of IPV was estimated to be 10.1% and the period prevalence during pregnancy and/or in the year preceding pregnancy 3.4%. In our highly medicalised society, only 19.2% and 6.6% of the victims of physical and sexual abuse respectively sought medical care. Routine screening for IPV by a general practitioner or OB/GYN was found to be largely acceptable. In a questionnaire-based Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice survey among OB/GYN in Flanders, OB/GYN prove unfamiliar with IPV and largely underestimate the extent of the problem. Merely 6.8% of the respondents ever received any education on IPV. They refute the incentive of universal screening, even during pregnancy and one of the major barriers is fear of offending patients. Physician education was found to be the strongest predictor of a positive attitude towards screening and of current screening practices. Hence, there is a definite need to improve women’s awareness regarding abuse and to endorse physician training on IPV.
    01/2009; 1(2):88-98.
  • Source