Melissa E Dichter1,2, Shannon N Ogden3, Anaïs Tuepker4,5, Katherine M Iverson6,7, Gala True8,9. 1. Center for Health Equity Research and Promotion, Crescenz VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 2. Temple University School of Social Work, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 3. Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, Oregon, USA. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 6. Women's Health Sciences Division of the National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Department of Psychiatry, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 8. South Central MIRECC, Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA. 9. Section on Community and Population Medicine, LSU School of Medicine, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Abstract
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly recognized as a social factor impacting health, and health care providers are encouraged to routinely screen and refer patients for needs related to IPV. Health care settings are often challenged, however, in their ability to connect patients with community-based IPV services. Some organizations have invested in on-site programs to facilitate identification and connection. Methods: The goal of this study was to understand IPV survivors' experiences with and perspectives on health care-connected IPV services. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted in-person by a trained and experienced interviewer and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were analyzed using team-based qualitative thematic content analysis. Participants included 68 individuals who had experienced IPV, recruited through one of two settings: (1) a health care organization with embedded IPV services or (2) a community-based IPV service organization that partners with health care settings. Results: Interviews revealed benefits of having health care-connected IPV services, including that the health care setting can be critical for providing information about IPV programs and that survivors may need assistance with navigation of community services. Survivors further highlighted recommendations for trauma-sensitive care that includes providing clarification about the role and scope of IPV services, following-up with but not forcing intervention, and ensuring privacy, confidentiality, and trust in interactions. Conclusions: Findings support health care settings having in-house or close partnership with IPV advocates to adequately support patients' needs in connecting with and navigating community based IPV-related services.
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly recognized as a social factor impacting health, and health care providers are encouraged to routinely screen and refer patients for needs related to IPV. Health care settings are often challenged, however, in their ability to connect patients with community-based IPV services. Some organizations have invested in on-site programs to facilitate identification and connection. Methods: The goal of this study was to understand IPV survivors' experiences with and perspectives on health care-connected IPV services. Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted in-person by a trained and experienced interviewer and were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interview transcripts were analyzed using team-based qualitative thematic content analysis. Participants included 68 individuals who had experienced IPV, recruited through one of two settings: (1) a health care organization with embedded IPV services or (2) a community-based IPV service organization that partners with health care settings. Results: Interviews revealed benefits of having health care-connected IPV services, including that the health care setting can be critical for providing information about IPV programs and that survivors may need assistance with navigation of community services. Survivors further highlighted recommendations for trauma-sensitive care that includes providing clarification about the role and scope of IPV services, following-up with but not forcing intervention, and ensuring privacy, confidentiality, and trust in interactions. Conclusions: Findings support health care settings having in-house or close partnership with IPV advocates to adequately support patients' needs in connecting with and navigating community based IPV-related services.
Entities:
Keywords:
domestic violence; intimate partner violence; qualitative; social services
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Omonyêlé Adjognon; Alessandra R Grillo; Melissa E Dichter; Cassidy A Gutner; Alison B Hamilton; Shannon Wiltsey Stirman; Megan R Gerber Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kimber P Richter; Babalola Faseru; Theresa I Shireman; Laura M Mussulman; Niaman Nazir; Terry Bush; Taneisha S Scheuermann; Kristopher J Preacher; Beatriz H Carlini; Brooke Magnusson; Edward F Ellerbeck; Carol Cramer; David J Cook; Mary J Martell Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2016-10 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; David C Grossman; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; Ann Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Katherine M Iverson; Kristin Huang; Stephanie Y Wells; Jason D Wright; Megan R Gerber; Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 2.228