Katherine M Iverson1,2,3, Omonyêlé Adjognon4,5, Alessandra R Grillo4, Melissa E Dichter6,7, Cassidy A Gutner4,8, Alison B Hamilton9,10, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman11,12, Megan R Gerber13,14. 1. Women's Health Sciences Division, National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA. katherine.iverson@va.gov. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. katherine.iverson@va.gov. 3. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. katherine.iverson@va.gov. 4. Women's Health Sciences Division, National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, South Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. 6. VA Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion (CHERP), Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. School of Social Work, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 9. VA Center for the Study of Healthcare Innovation, Implementation and Policy (CSHIIP), VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 10. Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, University of California Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 11. Dissemination and Training Division, National Center for PTSD, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 12. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA. 13. Women's Health Center, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA. 14. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly expected in primary care, consistent with clinical prevention guidelines (e.g., United States Preventive Services Task Force). Yet, little is known about real-world implementation of clinical practices or contextual factors impacting IPV screening program success. This study identified successful clinical practices, and barriers to and facilitators of IPV screening program implementation in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study of a purposeful sample of 11 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) categorized as early and late adopters of IPV screening programs within women's health primary care clinics. VAMCs were categorized based on performance measures collected by VHA operations partners. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two administrators and clinician key informants (e.g., Women's Health Medical Directors, IPV Coordinators, and physicians) involved in IPV screening program implementation decisions from six early- and five late-adopting sites nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: Participants reported on IPV screening and response practices, and contextual factors impacting implementation, in individual 1-h semi-structured phone interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid content analysis with key practices and issues synthesized in profile summaries. Themes were identified and iteratively revised, utilizing matrices to compare content across early- and late-adopting sites. KEY RESULTS: Five successful clinical practices were identified (use of two specific screening tools for primary IPV screening and secondary risk assessment, multilevel resource provision and community partnerships, co-location of mental health/social work, and patient-centered documentation). Multilevel barriers (time/resource constraints, competing priorities and mounting responsibilities in primary care, lack of policy, inadequate training, and discomfort addressing IPV) and facilitators (engaged IPV champions, internal and external supports, positive feedback regarding IPV screening practices, and current, national attention to violence against women) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings advance national efforts by highlighting successful clinical practices for IPV screening programs and informing strategies useful for enhancing their implementation within and beyond the VHA, ultimately improving services and women's health.
OBJECTIVES: Screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly expected in primary care, consistent with clinical prevention guidelines (e.g., United States Preventive Services Task Force). Yet, little is known about real-world implementation of clinical practices or contextual factors impacting IPV screening program success. This study identified successful clinical practices, and barriers to and facilitators of IPV screening program implementation in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study of a purposeful sample of 11 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) categorized as early and late adopters of IPV screening programs within women's health primary care clinics. VAMCs were categorized based on performance measures collected by VHA operations partners. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-two administrators and clinician key informants (e.g., Women's Health Medical Directors, IPV Coordinators, and physicians) involved in IPV screening program implementation decisions from six early- and five late-adopting sites nationwide. MAIN MEASURES: Participants reported on IPV screening and response practices, and contextual factors impacting implementation, in individual 1-h semi-structured phone interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using rapid content analysis with key practices and issues synthesized in profile summaries. Themes were identified and iteratively revised, utilizing matrices to compare content across early- and late-adopting sites. KEY RESULTS: Five successful clinical practices were identified (use of two specific screening tools for primary IPV screening and secondary risk assessment, multilevel resource provision and community partnerships, co-location of mental health/social work, and patient-centered documentation). Multilevel barriers (time/resource constraints, competing priorities and mounting responsibilities in primary care, lack of policy, inadequate training, and discomfort addressing IPV) and facilitators (engaged IPV champions, internal and external supports, positive feedback regarding IPV screening practices, and current, national attention to violence against women) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Findings advance national efforts by highlighting successful clinical practices for IPV screening programs and informing strategies useful for enhancing their implementation within and beyond the VHA, ultimately improving services and women's health.
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Matthew W King; Megan R Gerber; Patricia A Resick; Rachel Kimerling; Amy E Street; Dawne Vogt Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2015-01-26
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Katie A McLaughlin; Megan R Gerber; Alexandra Dick; Brian N Smith; Margret E Bell; Natasha Cook; Karen S Mitchell Journal: Psychol Violence Date: 2013-07
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Matthew W King; Patricia A Resick; Megan R Gerber; Rachel Kimerling; Dawne Vogt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2013-07-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: JoAnn E Kirchner; Mona J Ritchie; Jeffery A Pitcock; Louise E Parker; Geoffrey M Curran; John C Fortney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Amy E Bonomi; Robert S Thompson; Melissa Anderson; Robert J Reid; David Carrell; Jane A Dimer; Frederick P Rivara Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Melissa E Dichter; Terri N Haywood; Anneliese E Butler; Scarlett L Bellamy; Katherine M Iverson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2017-02-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Michele R Decker; Shannon Frattaroli; Brigid McCaw; Ann L Coker; Elizabeth Miller; Phyllis Sharps; Wendy G Lane; Mahua Mandal; Kelli Hirsch; Donna M Strobino; Wendy L Bennett; Jacquelyn Campbell; Andrea Gielen Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Melissa E Dichter; Anneliese Sorrentino; Scarlett Bellamy; Elina Medvedeva; Christopher B Roberts; Katherine M Iverson Journal: J Trauma Stress Date: 2017-11-28
Authors: Melissa E Dichter; Shannon N Ogden; Anaïs Tuepker; Katherine M Iverson; Gala True Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-01-08 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Melissa E Dichter; Kelly Stolzmann; Omonyêlé L Adjognon; Robert A Lew; LeAnn E Bruce; Megan R Gerber; Galina A Portnoy; Christopher J Miller Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Sean Cowlishaw; Isabella Freijah; Dzenana Kartal; Alyssa Sbisa; Ashlee Mulligan; MaryAnn Notarianni; Anne-Laure Couineau; David Forbes; Meaghan O'Donnell; Andrea Phelps; Katherine M Iverson; Alexandra Heber; Carol O'Dwyer; Patrick Smith; Fardous Hosseiny Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Galina A Portnoy; Katherine M Iverson; Sally G Haskell; Maggie Czarnogorski; Megan R Gerber Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: Katherine Sparrow; Filipa Alves-Costa; Ana Alves; Neil Greenberg; Louise M Howard; Nicola T Fear; Deirdre MacManus Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-10-15 Impact factor: 2.655