The Role of the Physician When a Patient Discloses Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Literature Review.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent and has lasting impacts on the health and well-being of the entire family involved. Primary care physicians often interact with male patients who perpetrate IPV and are in a role potentially to intervene, but there is very little research and guidance about how to address perpetration of IPV in the health care setting. We reviewed the existing literature research related to physicians' interactions with male perpetrators of IPV and summarize the recommendations. If a male patient discloses IPV perpetration, physicians should assess for lethality, readiness to change, and comorbid medical conditions that could impact treatment, such as substance abuse and mental illness. Experts agree that referrals to a Batterer Intervention Program should be the primary intervention. If there are no locally available Batterer Intervention Programs or the patient is unwilling to go, then a physician should refer the abuser to a therapist who has been trained specifically to work with perpetrators of IPV. In addition, physicians should be prepared to offer education about the negative impact of IPV on the victim, on any children, and on the abuser himself. Physicians should address any untreated substance abuse or mental health issues. Referral to couples therapy should generally be avoided. Physicians should continue to have regular follow-up with their male patients to support them in changing their behavior. Further research is needed to assess the role the health care system can have in preventing IPV perpetration.

Physicians' Experiences with Male Patients Who Perpetrate Intimate Partner Violence.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is a paucity of research exploring the role that physicians might play in intervening with IPV perpetrators. METHODS: A qualitative study explored interactions between family medicine physicians and male perpetrators of IPV. Fifteen physicians were purposefully sampled from 1 hospital system. The physicians were individually interviewed using a semistructured interview guide, and interview transcripts were analyzed using techniques from grounded theory. RESULTS: Three main themes relating to physicians' experiences were identified: (1) how physicians learned of or identified IPV perpetration by men (usually disclosure by the victim, but perpetrators also disclosed it); (2) how physicians assessed for comorbidities or responded to IPV perpetration by men; and (3) facilitators of and barriers to physician identification of and response to IPV perpetration by men. Facilitators identified include having a trusting relationship with the perpetrator and support services, whereas barriers consisted of strong negative emotions and a lack of training. CONCLUSIONS: Family medicine physicians in this sample reported feeling underprepared to serve patients whom they know are perpetrators of IPV, particularly if they are also providing care to the victim. Additional research is needed to develop interventions and effective trainings.