Establishing the Need for Family Medicine Training in Intimate Partner Violence Screening

Patti Pagels, Tiffany B. Kindratt, Guadalupe Reyna, Kenrick Lam, Mandy Silver, Nora E. Gimpel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2012, the USPSTF updated its guidelines and now recommends that all women of childbearing age be screened for IPV and services provided for women who screen positive. Based on these recommendations, objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate IPV knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians from different specialties and (2) determine significant differences by medical specialty. We recruited (n = 183) Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine (FM) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (OB/GYN) residents and attending physicians to complete a 15-question online survey assessing knowledge, attitudes and current IPV screening practices. We evaluated associations between medical specialty and knowledge, attitudes and practice measures before and after controlling for covariates. Knowledge of how often IPV occurs in society, community resources, and screening tools were significantly different by specialty (all p’s < 0.05). A majority of FM physicians (88 %) reported that it is a physician’s responsibility to find and treat IPV and 97 % reported that IPV should be included in their training. Compared to OB/GYN physicians in multivariate analyses, FM physicians were less likely to report they were comfortable discussing IPV with their patients in crude (OR = 0.35; 95 % CI = 0.13, 0.94) and adjusted models (OR = 0.20; 95 % CI = 0.06, 0.60). FM physicians were also less likely to report screening female patients for IPV before (OR = 0.25; 95 % CI = 0.08, 0.86) and after adjusting for confounders (OR = 0.11; 95 % CI = 0.03, 0.47). Our results indicate that FM physicians have positive attitudes towards finding and treating IPV yet need enhanced training to improve their comfort level with screening for and discussing IPV with their patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)508-514
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Community Health
Volume40
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015

Fingerprint

Family Physicians
physician
Medicine
medicine
violence
Physicians
Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice
Gynecology
gynecology
Obstetrics
obstetrics
Emergency Medicine
Internal Medicine
medical association
Intimate Partner Violence
Multivariate Analysis
online survey
Guidelines
resident
responsibility

Keywords

  • Domestic violence
  • Family Medicine
  • Intimate partner violence
  • Residency
  • Training

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Health(social science)

Cite this

Establishing the Need for Family Medicine Training in Intimate Partner Violence Screening. / Pagels, Patti; Kindratt, Tiffany B.; Reyna, Guadalupe; Lam, Kenrick; Silver, Mandy; Gimpel, Nora E.

In: Journal of Community Health, Vol. 40, No. 3, 01.06.2015, p. 508-514.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8b6b276fdb6e4a85bd5c151e2f242a12,
title = "Establishing the Need for Family Medicine Training in Intimate Partner Violence Screening",
abstract = "In 2012, the USPSTF updated its guidelines and now recommends that all women of childbearing age be screened for IPV and services provided for women who screen positive. Based on these recommendations, objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate IPV knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians from different specialties and (2) determine significant differences by medical specialty. We recruited (n = 183) Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine (FM) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (OB/GYN) residents and attending physicians to complete a 15-question online survey assessing knowledge, attitudes and current IPV screening practices. We evaluated associations between medical specialty and knowledge, attitudes and practice measures before and after controlling for covariates. Knowledge of how often IPV occurs in society, community resources, and screening tools were significantly different by specialty (all p’s < 0.05). A majority of FM physicians (88 {\%}) reported that it is a physician’s responsibility to find and treat IPV and 97 {\%} reported that IPV should be included in their training. Compared to OB/GYN physicians in multivariate analyses, FM physicians were less likely to report they were comfortable discussing IPV with their patients in crude (OR = 0.35; 95 {\%} CI = 0.13, 0.94) and adjusted models (OR = 0.20; 95 {\%} CI = 0.06, 0.60). FM physicians were also less likely to report screening female patients for IPV before (OR = 0.25; 95 {\%} CI = 0.08, 0.86) and after adjusting for confounders (OR = 0.11; 95 {\%} CI = 0.03, 0.47). Our results indicate that FM physicians have positive attitudes towards finding and treating IPV yet need enhanced training to improve their comfort level with screening for and discussing IPV with their patients.",
keywords = "Domestic violence, Family Medicine, Intimate partner violence, Residency, Training",
author = "Patti Pagels and Kindratt, {Tiffany B.} and Guadalupe Reyna and Kenrick Lam and Mandy Silver and Gimpel, {Nora E.}",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s10900-014-9964-1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "508--514",
journal = "Journal of Community Health",
issn = "0094-5145",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Establishing the Need for Family Medicine Training in Intimate Partner Violence Screening

AU - Pagels, Patti

AU - Kindratt, Tiffany B.

AU - Reyna, Guadalupe

AU - Lam, Kenrick

AU - Silver, Mandy

AU - Gimpel, Nora E.

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - In 2012, the USPSTF updated its guidelines and now recommends that all women of childbearing age be screened for IPV and services provided for women who screen positive. Based on these recommendations, objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate IPV knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians from different specialties and (2) determine significant differences by medical specialty. We recruited (n = 183) Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine (FM) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (OB/GYN) residents and attending physicians to complete a 15-question online survey assessing knowledge, attitudes and current IPV screening practices. We evaluated associations between medical specialty and knowledge, attitudes and practice measures before and after controlling for covariates. Knowledge of how often IPV occurs in society, community resources, and screening tools were significantly different by specialty (all p’s < 0.05). A majority of FM physicians (88 %) reported that it is a physician’s responsibility to find and treat IPV and 97 % reported that IPV should be included in their training. Compared to OB/GYN physicians in multivariate analyses, FM physicians were less likely to report they were comfortable discussing IPV with their patients in crude (OR = 0.35; 95 % CI = 0.13, 0.94) and adjusted models (OR = 0.20; 95 % CI = 0.06, 0.60). FM physicians were also less likely to report screening female patients for IPV before (OR = 0.25; 95 % CI = 0.08, 0.86) and after adjusting for confounders (OR = 0.11; 95 % CI = 0.03, 0.47). Our results indicate that FM physicians have positive attitudes towards finding and treating IPV yet need enhanced training to improve their comfort level with screening for and discussing IPV with their patients.

AB - In 2012, the USPSTF updated its guidelines and now recommends that all women of childbearing age be screened for IPV and services provided for women who screen positive. Based on these recommendations, objectives of this study were to (1) evaluate IPV knowledge, attitudes, and practices of physicians from different specialties and (2) determine significant differences by medical specialty. We recruited (n = 183) Internal Medicine, Emergency Medicine, Family Medicine (FM) and Obstetrics/Gynecology (OB/GYN) residents and attending physicians to complete a 15-question online survey assessing knowledge, attitudes and current IPV screening practices. We evaluated associations between medical specialty and knowledge, attitudes and practice measures before and after controlling for covariates. Knowledge of how often IPV occurs in society, community resources, and screening tools were significantly different by specialty (all p’s < 0.05). A majority of FM physicians (88 %) reported that it is a physician’s responsibility to find and treat IPV and 97 % reported that IPV should be included in their training. Compared to OB/GYN physicians in multivariate analyses, FM physicians were less likely to report they were comfortable discussing IPV with their patients in crude (OR = 0.35; 95 % CI = 0.13, 0.94) and adjusted models (OR = 0.20; 95 % CI = 0.06, 0.60). FM physicians were also less likely to report screening female patients for IPV before (OR = 0.25; 95 % CI = 0.08, 0.86) and after adjusting for confounders (OR = 0.11; 95 % CI = 0.03, 0.47). Our results indicate that FM physicians have positive attitudes towards finding and treating IPV yet need enhanced training to improve their comfort level with screening for and discussing IPV with their patients.

KW - Domestic violence

KW - Family Medicine

KW - Intimate partner violence

KW - Residency

KW - Training

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939996670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939996670&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10900-014-9964-1

DO - 10.1007/s10900-014-9964-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 25352415

AN - SCOPUS:84939996670

VL - 40

SP - 508

EP - 514

JO - Journal of Community Health

JF - Journal of Community Health

SN - 0094-5145

IS - 3

ER -