Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Within a Health Care Setting

2007 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Trabold
2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin V. Rhodes ◽  
Theodore J. Iwashyna

AbstractThe mental health correlates of male aggression or violence against an intimate partner (IPV) are examined using exploratory cluster analysis for 81 men who self-reported risk factors for IPV perpetration on a computer-based health risk assessment. Men disclosing IPV perpetration could be meaningfully subdivided into two different clusters: a high pathology/high violence cluster, and lower pathology/low violence cluster. These groups appear to perpetrate intimate partner violence in differing psychoemotional contexts and could be robustly identified using multiple distinct analytic methods. If men who self-disclose IPV in a health care setting can be meaningfully subdivided based on mental health symptoms and level of violence, it lends support for potential new targeted approaches to preventing partner violence perpetration by both women and men.


2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 254-257
Author(s):  
Kathy Grimley-Baker

Nurses are expected to provide a safe haven for clients. When clients seek the services of nurses, they are vulnerable, and they expect privacy and confidentiality. Reporting acknowledged or suspected intimate partner violence (IPV) to authorities can impact nurse–client trust relationships. This article discusses the legal ramifications of reporting of IPV and their implications in a health care setting.


2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052199746
Author(s):  
Kirsten J. H. Das ◽  
Sarah Peitzmeier ◽  
Iman K. Berrahou ◽  
Jennifer Potter

Transgender patients are at elevated risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), but national guidelines do not recommend routine screening for this population. This paper explores the feasibility and effectiveness of routine IPV screening of transgender patients in a primary care setting by describing an existing screening program and identifying factors associated with referral and engagement in IPV-related care for transgender patients. An IPV “referral cascade” was created for 1,947 transgender primary care patients at an urban community health center who were screened for IPV between January 1, 2014 to May 31, 2016: (a) Of those screening positive, how many were referred? (b) Of those referred, how many engaged in IPV-specific care within 3 months? Logistic regression identified demographic correlates of referral and engagement. Of the 1,947 transgender patients screened for IPV, 227 screened positive. 110/227 (48.5%) were referred to either internal or external IPV-related services. Of those referred to on-site services, 65/103 (63.1%) had an IPV-related appointment within 3 months of a positive screen. IPV referral was associated with being assigned male at birth (AMAB) versus assigned female at birth (AFAB) (AOR = 2.69, 95% CI 1.52, 4.75) and with nonbinary, rather than binary, gender identity (AOR = 2.07, 95%CI 1.09, 3.73). Engagement in IPV-related services was not associated with any measured demographic characteristics. Similar to published rates for cisgender women, half of transgender patients with positive IPV screens received referrals and two-thirds of those referred engaged in IPV-specific care. These findings support routine IPV screening and referral for transgender patients in primary care settings. Provider training should focus on how to ensure referrals are made for all transgender patients who screen positive for IPV, regardless of gender identity, to ensure the benefits of screening accrue equally for all patients.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document