Research articleDomestic violence compared to other health risks: A survey of physicians’ beliefs and behaviors☆
Section snippets
Participants
In November 2000, we mailed a questionnaire to a national random sample of 1200 physicians whose medical specialty was internal medicine or family practice. Questionnaires were returned over the following 3 months. The random sample, drawn from the American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile (a list of physicians in the United States, regardless of AMA membership status), was obtained from Medical Marketing Service, Inc. (Wood Dale, IL). The sample excluded physicians reported by
Respondents
Of the 1200 physicians sampled, 890 were eligible. Our comparison of this group to the target population revealed no differences in age, gender, specialty, or region (Table 1). Of the eligible physicians, 610 (69%) completed the survey. Respondents differed significantly from nonrespondents by specialty, gender, and geographic region. Respondents differed significantly from the target population by race/ethnicity and year of medical school graduation (for details, see Table 1). Accordingly,
Discussion
The results from this comparative study of physicians’ responses to patient health risks indicate that physicians’ behaviors and beliefs on screening and intervention for domestic violence differ from those for tobacco use, alcohol abuse, and HIV/STDs. Physicians in our study are not nearly screening for domestic violence at the level they screen for other health risks: Only 19% reported screening new patients for domestic violence compared with 98% for tobacco use, 90% for alcohol abuse, and
Acknowledgements
This project is supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (grant R01 MH51580). The research procedures pertaining to the human participants included informed consent and were approved by the Committee on Human Research at the University of California San Francisco (which holds Multiple Project Assurance #M-1169, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). The approval number is H2582-17483-01.
References (57)
- et al.
Violence against women as a public health issuecomments from the CDC
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
Health status and health care use of Massachusetts women reporting partner abuse
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
Predictive validity of a screen for partner violence against women
Am J Prev Med
(2001) - et al.
Women’s opinions about domestic violence screening and mandatory reporting
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
Methods of and attitudes toward screening obstetrics and gynecology patients for domestic violence
Am J Obstet Gynecol
(1995) - et al.
Screening for intimate partner violence by health care providersbarriers and interventions
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
A survey of primary-care physician preventive servicesimplications for smoking-cessation counseling
Patient Educ Couns
(1984) - et al.
Attitudes and practices of physicians regarding hypertension and smokingthe Stanford Five City Project
Prev Med
(1985) Physician-delivered interventions for smoking cessationstrategies for increasing effectiveness
Prev Med
(1987)- et al.
Beyond screening for domestic violencea systems model approach in a managed care setting
Am J Prev Med
(2001)
Identification of abuse in emergency departmentseffectiveness of a two-question screening tool
J Emerg Nurs
The battered woman
Physician characteristics and distribution in the U.S.2000–2001 edition
Towards a comprehensive model of change
Assessing for abuse during pregnancyseverity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care
JAMA
Violence by intimatesanalysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends
The Commonwealth Fund
First Comprehensive National Health Survey of American Women
Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against womenfindings from the National Violence Against Women Survey
Prevalence of domestic violence among patients in three ambulatory care internal medicine clinics
J Gen Intern Med
Wife abuseare we detecting it?
J Womens Health
Domestic violence in a primary care settingpatterns and prevalence
Arch Fam Med
American Medical Association diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence
Arch Fam Med
Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family
Position paper 9211(PP)domestic violence
APHA Public Policy Statements, 1948-present, cumulative
Guide to clinical preventive services
Preventing domestic violenceclinical guidelines on routine screening
Diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence
Family violencean AAFP white paper
Am Fam Physician
Cited by (60)
Women victims of sexual assault in Sidi Bouzid: Epidemiological profile and medico-judicial intervention
2023, Revue de Medecine LegaleIntimate partner violence screening in the dental setting: Results of a nationally representative survey
2018, Journal of the American Dental AssociationCitation Excerpt :Many patient barriers to screening in health care settings have been noted, including loss of privacy, emotional distress, discomfort about the topic, and concerns about reprimanding abuse if the abuse is reported.38 As such, dentists are not alone among health care providers and others in their reluctance to screen for IPV, because the demands of playing an active role in IPV screening can be complicated, sensitive, and overwhelming for practitioners.10,49 Only in the past several years did the US Preventive Screening Task Force start to recommend that clinicians screen women of childbearing age for IPV and to provide referrals for intervention services accordingly.72
Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behavior
2015, Psychology and Geriatrics: Integrated Care for an Aging PopulationTrauma-sensitive yoga as an adjunct mental health treatment in group therapy for survivors of domestic violence: A feasibility study
2014, Complementary Therapies in Clinical PracticeDetection of domestic violence by a domestic violence advocate in the ED
2012, Journal of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :However, there are numerous barriers to adequate screening, detection, and support in the ED that may affect actual rates of detection. Health care providers are often untrained or feel uncomfortable dealing with patients who present with complaints secondary to domestic violence (3). Additionally, there are arguments that there is simply too little time for nurses or physicians to adequately address the important issue of domestic violence during the patient's ED visit (4).
Implementing successful intimate partner violence screening programs in health care settings: Evidence generated from a realist-informed systematic review
2011, Social Science and MedicineCitation Excerpt :After developing our conceptual framework, we sought support from theoretical and empirical sources. Many of the studies we consulted suggested that screening efforts are more successful when providers (i) accept the responsibility of intervening with victims of IPV, (ii) are comfortable intervening (Elliott, Nerney, Jones, & Friedmann, 2002; Gerbert et al., 2002), and (iii) have the resources and time to assess and assist the victim (e.g., Short et al., 2002; Wills et al., 2008). The social cognitive theory for behavior and behavior change resulting from the interaction between behaviors (i.e., the desired behavior or, in our case, IPV screening behavior), personal factors (i.e., the person’s beliefs and cognitive competencies), and the environment (i.e., social influences and structures within the environment) explains how and why these components are necessary to achieve effective screening (Bandura, 1986, 1988).
- ☆
Information for full-text access to this article can be found at www.ajpm-online.net.