Sarah My Zelazny1, Judy C Chang2, Jessica G Burke3, Mary Hawk4, Elizabeth Miller1. 1. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Pediatrics, 3414 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. 2. Magee Women's Hospital of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh, School of Medicine, 3380 Boulevard of the Allies, Suite 309, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. 3. University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, 6132 Parran Hall, 130 De Soto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261. 4. University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, 207E Parran Hall, 130 De Soto Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15261.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health problem that disproportionately affects adolescent women seeking family planning services. Current clinical guidelines recommend routine IPV assessment yet provide limited guidance on how to establish patient comfort in addressing this sensitive issue. Few studies exist describing the perspectives of adolescent female patients who have experienced IPV and their suggestions on how providers should communicate about IPV. METHODS: This study is a subset of a larger IPV intervention trial in family planning clinics. For this study, we chose a qualitative approach using individual interviews to explore patient perspectives in an open, in-depth manner without limiting potential responses with predetermined answers or investigator-imposed assumptions. We audio recorded clinic encounters for participating providers and patients and interviewed patient participants, asking them to listen to and reflect on how their provider talked about IPV in their audiorecorded clinic encounters. RESULTS: The mean age for the 44 participants was 22.8 years old. Participants named 'comfort' as a main component for discussing and disclosing IPV in the clinical setting. The sub-themes associated with how to create patient comfort include: Build the patient-provider relationship, Provider should communicate like a friend/be on the patient's level, Patient needs to feel cared for by provider, and Appropriate timing and space. CONCLUSION: Methods for establishing patient comfort via communication should be incorporated into and examined within sensitive healthcare areas such as IPV and can be extended to HIV, palliative, and oncological care to improve patient health outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health problem that disproportionately affects adolescent women seeking family planning services. Current clinical guidelines recommend routine IPV assessment yet provide limited guidance on how to establish patient comfort in addressing this sensitive issue. Few studies exist describing the perspectives of adolescent female patients who have experienced IPV and their suggestions on how providers should communicate about IPV. METHODS: This study is a subset of a larger IPV intervention trial in family planning clinics. For this study, we chose a qualitative approach using individual interviews to explore patient perspectives in an open, in-depth manner without limiting potential responses with predetermined answers or investigator-imposed assumptions. We audio recorded clinic encounters for participating providers and patients and interviewed patient participants, asking them to listen to and reflect on how their provider talked about IPV in their audiorecorded clinic encounters. RESULTS: The mean age for the 44 participants was 22.8 years old. Participants named 'comfort' as a main component for discussing and disclosing IPV in the clinical setting. The sub-themes associated with how to create patient comfort include: Build the patient-provider relationship, Provider should communicate like a friend/be on the patient's level, Patient needs to feel cared for by provider, and Appropriate timing and space. CONCLUSION: Methods for establishing patient comfort via communication should be incorporated into and examined within sensitive healthcare areas such as IPV and can be extended to HIV, palliative, and oncological care to improve patient health outcomes.
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Daniel J Tancredi; Michele R Decker; Heather L McCauley; Kelley A Jones; Heather Anderson; Lisa James; Jay G Silverman Journal: Contraception Date: 2016-02-15 Impact factor: 3.375
Authors: Elizabeth Miller; Michele R Decker; Heather L McCauley; Daniel J Tancredi; Rebecca R Levenson; Jeffrey Waldman; Phyllis Schoenwald; Jay G Silverman Journal: Contraception Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 3.375
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: Jasmin Mahabamunuge; Kayla Morel; John Budrow; Innes Tounkel; Cassidy Hart; Camille Briskin; Madison Kasoff; Sarah Spiegel; Donald Risucci; Jennifer Koestler Journal: J Adv Med Educ Prof Date: 2021-10