M. Diaz Tsuzuki1, H. Decker1, J. Zawisza2, M. Martinez2, S. Gurung1, E. De Marchis3, T. Bongiovanni1 1University Of California – San Francisco, Department Of Surgery, San Francisco, CA, USA 2W.O.M.A.N., Inc., San Francisco, CALIFORNIA, USA 3University Of California – San Francisco, Department Of Family & Community Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA
Introduction: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common among injured patients and adversely impacts health. Universal screening is recommended, but real-world implementation is challenging. Initiatives to increase IPV screening following trauma have been reported, but little is known about patient perspectives on this practice. We sought to better understand acceptability and appropriateness of screening for IPV following traumatic injury from a patient perspective.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative, community-based participatory research (CBPR) study in partnership with a local community-based organization focused on supporting survivors of IPV. We developed a semi-structured interview guide to explore perspectives on the acceptability of IPV screening. Using purposive sampling, we recruited English-speaking adults who were IPV survivors receiving services from our partner organization or who were admitted to a Level 1 trauma center after traumatic injury. We developed a codebook based on the Health Equity Implementation Framework and analyzed our data using thematic analysis.
Results: We conducted 16 interviews. Participants included 10 survivors of IPV, eight women, and two non-binary participants. We identified patient-, provider-, system-, and environmental-level factors that influenced patient experiences with being screened for IPV. Four themes emerged in this study: 1) inpatient universal screening for IPV following admission for traumatic injury is generally acceptable to survivors and non-survivors; 2) providers establishing psychological and physical safety and building trust with patients facilitates effective screening; 3) mandatory reporting of IPV to police can prevent patient disclosure; 4) screening questions for IPV should reference the myriad ways survivors experience abuse (Table 1).
Conclusion: Results from this study will inform patient-centered implementation of screening for IPV in patients admitted to the hospital following trauma. Our CBPR approach will help ensure that the interpretation, dissemination, and implementation of findings are both community-centered and culturally sensitive.