Disclosing Intimate Partner Violence to Health Care Clinicians - What a Difference the Setting Makes: A Qualitative Study


Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author Liebschutz, Jane en_US
dc.contributor.author Battaglia, Tracy en_US
dc.contributor.author Finley, Erin en_US
dc.contributor.author Averbuch, Tali en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2012-01-09T20:53:55Z
dc.date.available 2012-01-09T20:53:55Z
dc.date.copyright 2008 en_US
dc.date.issued 2008-7-4 en_US
dc.identifier.citation Liebschutz, Jane, Tracy Battaglia, Erin Finley, Tali Averbuch. "Disclosing intimate partner violence to health care clinicians - What a difference the setting makes: A qualitative study" BMC Public Health 8:229. (2008) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 1471-2458 en_US
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2144/2904
dc.description.abstract BACKGROUND. Despite endorsement by national organizations, the impact of screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) is understudied, particularly as it occurs in different clinical settings. We analyzed interviews of IPV survivors to understand the risks and benefits of disclosing IPV to clinicians across specialties. METHODS. Participants were English-speaking female IPV survivors recruited through IPV programs in Massachusetts. In-depth interviews describing medical encounters related to abuse were analyzed for common themes using Grounded Theory qualitative research methods. Encounters with health care clinicians were categorized by outcome (IPV disclosure by patient, discovery evidenced by discussion of IPV by clinician without patient disclosure, or non-disclosure), attribute (beneficial, unhelpful, harmful), and specialty (emergency department (ED), primary care (PC), obstetrics/gynecology (OB/GYN)). RESULTS. Of 27 participants aged 18–56, 5 were white, 10 Latina, and 12 black. Of 59 relevant health care encounters, 23 were in ED, 17 in OB/GYN, and 19 in PC. Seven of 9 ED disclosures were characterized as unhelpful; the majority of disclosures in PC and OB/GYN were characterized as beneficial. There were no harmful disclosures in any setting. Unhelpful disclosures resulted in emotional distress and alienation from health care. Regardless of whether disclosure occurred, beneficial encounters were characterized by familiarity with the clinician, acknowledgement of the abuse, respect and relevant referrals. CONCLUSION. While no harms resulted from IPV disclosure, survivor satisfaction with disclosure is shaped by the setting of the encounter. Clinicians should aim to build a therapeutic relationship with IPV survivors that empowers and educates patients and does not demand disclosure. en_US
dc.language.iso en en_US
dc.publisher BioMed Central en_US
dc.rights Copyright 2008 Liebschutz et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. en_US
dc.rights.uri http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 en_US
dc.title Disclosing Intimate Partner Violence to Health Care Clinicians - What a Difference the Setting Makes: A Qualitative Study en_US
dc.type article en_US
dc.identifier.doi 10.1186/1471-2458-8-229 en_US
dc.identifier.pubmedid 18601725 en_US
dc.identifier.pmcid 2474863 en_US

Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search OpenBU

Advanced Search


Deposit Materials