Patient and provider barriers, facilitators, and implementation preferences of intimate partner violence perpetration screening.

Portnoy GA, Colon R, Gross GM, Adams LJ, Bastian LA, Iverson KM. Patient and provider barriers, facilitators, and implementation preferences of intimate partner violence perpetration screening. BMC health services research. 2020 Aug 13; 20(1):746.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 10-029 – Intimate Partner Violence, Health, and Health Care Among Female Veterans

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: The substantial prevalence and consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) underscore the need for effective healthcare response in the way of screening and follow up care. Despite growing evidence regarding perspectives on healthcare-based screening for IPV experiences (i.e., victimization), there is an extremely limited evidence-base to inform practice and policy for detecting IPV use (i.e., perpetration). This study identified barriers, facilitators, and implementation preferences among United States (US) Veterans Health Administration (VHA) patients and providers for IPV use screening. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with patients enrolled in VHA healthcare (N? = 10) and focus groups with VHA providers across professional disciplines (N? = 29). Data was analyzed using thematic and content analyses. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed convergence between patients' and providers' beliefs regarding key factors for IPV use screening, including the importance of a strong rapport, clear and comprehensive processes and procedures, universal implementation of screening, and a self-report screening tool that assesses for both IPV use and experiences concurrently. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide foundational information regarding patient and provider barriers, facilitators, and preferences for IPV use screening that can inform clinical practice and next steps in this important but understudied aspect of healthcare.