Elizabeth Miller1, Heather L McCauley2, Michele R Decker3, Rebecca Levenson4, Sarah Zelazny5, Kelley A Jones6, Heather Anderson7, Jay G Silverman8. 1. director, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, and professor of pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 2. assistant professor, Human Development & Family Studies, Michigan State University, East Lansing, and assistant professor, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 3. associate professor, Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, and director, Women's Health & Rights Program, Center for Public Health & Human Rights, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 4. senior policy analyst, Futures Without Violence, San Francisco. 5. clinical research assistant, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 6. postdoctoral associate, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 7. clinical research coordinator, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. 8. director of research, Center on Gender Equity and Health, and professor of medicine and global public health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Despite multiple calls for clinic-based services to identify and support women victimized by partner violence, screening remains uncommon in family planning clinics. Furthermore, traditional screening, based on disclosure of violence, may miss women who fear reporting their experiences. Strategies that are sensitive to the signs, symptoms and impact of trauma require exploration. METHODS: In 2011, as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial, staff at 11 Pennsylvania family planning clinics were trained to offer a trauma-informed intervention addressing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion to all women seeking care, regardless of exposure to violence. The intervention sought to educate women about available resources and harm reduction strategies. In 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, 18 providers, five administrators and 49 patients completed semistructured interviews exploring acceptability of the intervention and barriers to implementation. Consensus and open coding strategies were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Providers reported that the intervention increased their confidence in discussing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion. They noted that asking patients to share the educational information with other women facilitated the conversation. Barriers to implementation included lack of time and not having routine reminders to offer the intervention. Patients described how receiving the intervention gave them important information, made them feel supported and less isolated, and empowered them to help others. CONCLUSIONS: A universal intervention may be acceptable to providers and patients. However, successful implementation in family planning settings may require attention to system-level factors that providers view as barriers.
RCT Entities:
CONTEXT: Despite multiple calls for clinic-based services to identify and support women victimized by partner violence, screening remains uncommon in family planning clinics. Furthermore, traditional screening, based on disclosure of violence, may miss women who fear reporting their experiences. Strategies that are sensitive to the signs, symptoms and impact of trauma require exploration. METHODS: In 2011, as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial, staff at 11 Pennsylvania family planning clinics were trained to offer a trauma-informed intervention addressing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion to all women seeking care, regardless of exposure to violence. The intervention sought to educate women about available resources and harm reduction strategies. In 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, 18 providers, five administrators and 49 patients completed semistructured interviews exploring acceptability of the intervention and barriers to implementation. Consensus and open coding strategies were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: Providers reported that the intervention increased their confidence in discussing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion. They noted that asking patients to share the educational information with other women facilitated the conversation. Barriers to implementation included lack of time and not having routine reminders to offer the intervention. Patients described how receiving the intervention gave them important information, made them feel supported and less isolated, and empowered them to help others. CONCLUSIONS: A universal intervention may be acceptable to providers and patients. However, successful implementation in family planning settings may require attention to system-level factors that providers view as barriers.
Authors: Heather L McCauley; Jay G Silverman; Kelley A Jones; Daniel J Tancredi; Michele R Decker; Marie C McCormick; S Bryn Austin; Heather A Anderson; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Contraception Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Heather L McCauley; Daniel J Tancredi; Michele R Decker; Heather Anderson; Jay G Silverman Journal: Contraception Date: 2013-12-10 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Judy C Chang; Michele Decker; Kathryn E Moracco; Sandra L Martin; Ruth Petersen; Pamela Y Frasier Journal: J Am Med Womens Assoc (1972) Date: 2003
Authors: Michele Irene Bracken; Jill Theresa Messing; Jacquelyn C Campbell; Lareina N La Flair; Joan Kub Journal: Issues Ment Health Nurs Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 1.835
Authors: Jasmine Uysal; Jamila K Stockman; Elizabeth Miller; Teresita Rocha-Jimenez; Gudelia M Rangel; Alejandra Padilla Mercado; Argentina E Servin Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2020-11-12
Authors: Amber L Hill; Elizabeth Miller; Sonya Borrero; Sarah Zelazny; Summer Miller-Walfish; Janine Talis; Galen E Switzer; Kaleab Z Abebe; Judy C Chang Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Lisa Bunting; Lorna Montgomery; Suzanne Mooney; Mandi MacDonald; Stephen Coulter; David Hayes; Gavin Davidson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-07-03 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Amber L Hill; Hadas Zachor; Elizabeth Miller; Janine Talis; Sarah Zelazny; Kelley A Jones Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.681