Sarah E Stumbar1, Melissa Ward-Peterson2, Carla S Lupi3. 1. Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, Florida International University, Miami, FL. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work, Florida International University, Miami, FL. 3. Kaiser Permanente School of Medicine, Miami, FL.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that the majority of health care practitioners do not routinely screen for intimate partner violence (IPV); lack of provider preparedness and education is an often-cited barrier to screening. Our third-year family medicine clerkship includes a pregnancy options counseling objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) that requires students to review a preencounter online educational module that highlights screening guidelines for IPV and reproductive coercion. The goal of this study was to explore students' internal barriers to screening patients for IPV and reproductive coercion, and whether our curricular interventions adequately addressed these barriers. METHODS: We administered an immediate postencounter, anonymous, online survey with open-ended and Likert-type questions to 118 medical students during the 2016 academic year. We used an exploratory, iterative process to analyze qualitative responses and quantify recurrent and commonly identified themes. RESULTS: After the OSCE, students reported they were more likely to screen for IPV (94%) and reproductive coercion (82%) in future encounters. Qualitative analysis revealed two major types of barriers to screening: internal barriers concerning the screening inquiry itself and concerns regarding handling of patients' responses. CONCLUSIONS: The online preparatory module and subsequent OSCE provided a low-stakes environment in which to practice screening. However, student comments about their barriers to screening suggest that a first or early curricular intervention folding IPV and reproductive coercion into an educational module on pregnancy options counseling did not optimally promote this screening behavior.
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that the majority of health care practitioners do not routinely screen for intimate partner violence (IPV); lack of provider preparedness and education is an often-cited barrier to screening. Our third-year family medicine clerkship includes a pregnancy options counseling objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) that requires students to review a preencounter online educational module that highlights screening guidelines for IPV and reproductive coercion. The goal of this study was to explore students' internal barriers to screening patients for IPV and reproductive coercion, and whether our curricular interventions adequately addressed these barriers. METHODS: We administered an immediate postencounter, anonymous, online survey with open-ended and Likert-type questions to 118 medical students during the 2016 academic year. We used an exploratory, iterative process to analyze qualitative responses and quantify recurrent and commonly identified themes. RESULTS: After the OSCE, students reported they were more likely to screen for IPV (94%) and reproductive coercion (82%) in future encounters. Qualitative analysis revealed two major types of barriers to screening: internal barriers concerning the screening inquiry itself and concerns regarding handling of patients' responses. CONCLUSIONS: The online preparatory module and subsequent OSCE provided a low-stakes environment in which to practice screening. However, student comments about their barriers to screening suggest that a first or early curricular intervention folding IPV and reproductive coercion into an educational module on pregnancy options counseling did not optimally promote this screening behavior.
Authors: Cindy S Moskovic; Gretchen Guiton; Annapoorna Chirra; Ana E Núñez; Judyann Bigby; Christiane Stahl; Candace Robertson; Elizabeth C Thul; Elizabeth Miller; Abigail Sims; Carolyn J Sachs; Janet P Pregler Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 5.128
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