ADVANCE integrated group intervention to address both substance use and intimate partner abuse perpetration by men in substance use treatment: a feasibility randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Substance use is a risk factor for intimate partner abuse (IPA) perpetration. Delivering perpetrator interventions concurrently with substance use treatment shows promise. METHODS: The feasibility of conducting an efficacy and cost-effectiveness trial of the ADVANCE 16-week intervention to reduce IPA by men in substance use treatment was explored. A multicentre, parallel group individually randomised controlled feasibility trial and formative evaluation was conducted. Over three temporal cycles, 104 men who had perpetrated IPA towards a female (ex) partner in the past year were randomly allocated to receive the ADVANCE intervention + substance use treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 54) or TAU only (n = 50) and assessed 16-weeks post-randomisation. Participants' (ex) partners were offered support and 27 provided outcome data. Thirty-one staff and 12 men who attended the intervention participated in focus groups or interviews that were analysed using the framework approach. Pre-specified criteria assessed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial: 1) ≥ 60% of eligible male participants recruited; 2) intervention acceptable to staff and male participants; 3) ≥ 70% of participants followed-up and 4) levels of substance use and 5) IPA perpetrated by men in the intervention arm did not increase from average baseline level at 16-weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: 70.7% (104/147) of eligible men were recruited. The formative evaluation confirmed the intervention's acceptability. Therapeutic alliance and session satisfaction were rated highly. The overall median rate of intervention session attendance (of 14 compulsory sessions) was 28.6% (range 14.3-64.3% by the third cycle). 49.0% (51/104) of men and 63.0% (17/27) of their (ex) partners were followed-up 16-weeks post-randomisation. This increased to 100% of men and women by cycle three. At follow-up, neither substance use nor IPA perpetration had worsened for men in the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to deliver the ADVANCE intervention in substance use treatment services, although it proved difficult to collect data from female (ex)partners. While some progression criteria were met, others were not, although improvements were demonstrated by the third cycle. Lessons learned will be implemented into the study design for a definitive trial of the ADVANCE intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN79435190 prospectively registered 22nd May 2018.

"From taboo to routine": a qualitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Health services are often the first point of professional contact for people who have experienced domestic violence and abuse. We report on the evaluation of a multi-site, hospital-based advocacy intervention for survivors of domestic violence and abuse. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), who provide survivors with support around safety, criminal justice, and health and wellbeing, were located in five hospitals in England between 2012 and 2015 in emergency departments and maternity services. We present views about IDVAs' approaches to tackling domestic violence and abuse, how the IDVA service worked in practice, and factors that hindered and facilitated engagement with survivors. METHODS: We adopted a convenience sampling approach and invited participation from all who offered to take part within the study timeframe. Sixty-four healthcare professionals, IDVAs, IDVA service managers, and commissioners at all sites were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using a thematic approach: familiarising ourselves with the data through repeated readings and noting initial ideas; generating initial codes through double coding notable features of the data across the dataset; collating codes into potential themes; and reviewing themes to ensure they captured the essence of the data. RESULTS: Two key themes emerged. The first was Hospital-based IDVAs fulfil several crucial roles. This theme highlighted that healthcare professionals thought the hospital-based IDVA service was valuable because it enhanced their skills, knowledge, and confidence in asking about domestic violence and abuse. It enabled them to immediately refer and provide support to patients who might have otherwise been lost along a referral pathway. It also reached survivors who might otherwise have remained hidden. The second theme was Success hinges on a range of structural factors. This theme illustrated the importance of ongoing domestic violence and abuse training for staff, the IDVA having private and dedicated space, and the service being embedded in hospital infrastructure (e.g. featuring it in hospital-wide policies and enabling IDVAs access to medical records). CONCLUSION: Hospital-based IDVAs offer a unique and valued way to respond to domestic violence and abuse in a healthcare setting. Further work must now be done to explore how to implement the service sustainably.

Sharing reports about domestic violence and abuse with general practitioners: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is common and damaging to health. UK national guidance advocates a multi-agency response to DVA, and domestic homicide reviews consistently recommend improved information-sharing between agencies. Identification of patients experiencing DVA in general practice may come from external information shared with the practice, such as police incident reports and multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) reports. The aim of this study was to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) and the police about sharing reports about DVA with GPs. METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, police staff and a partnership manager. Participants were located across England and Wales. Thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 23 GPs, six police staff and one former partnership manager. Experiences of information-sharing with GPs about DVA varied. Participants described the relevance and value of external reports to GPs to help address the health consequences of DVA and safeguard patients. They balanced competing priorities when managing this information in the electronic medical record, namely visibility to GPs versus the risk of unintended disclosure to patients. GPs also spoke of the judgements they made about exploring DVA with patients based on external reports, which varied between abusive and non-abusive adults and children. Some felt constrained by short general practice consultations. Some police and GPs reflected on a loss of control when information about DVA was shared between agencies, and the risk of unintended consequences. Both police and GPs highlighted the importance of clear information and a shared understanding about responsibility for action. CONCLUSION: GPs regarded external reports about DVA as relevant to their role, but safely recording this information in the electronic medical record and using it to support patients required complex judgements. Both GPs and police staff emphasised the importance of clarity of information and responsibility for action when information was shared between agencies about patients affected by DVA.

Cry for health: a quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) damages the health of survivors and increases use of healthcare services. We report findings from a multi-site evaluation of hospital-based advocacy services, designed to support survivors attending emergency departments and maternity services. METHODS: Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA) were co-located in five UK hospitals. Case-level data were collected at T1 (initial referral) and T2 (case closure) from survivors accessing hospital (T1 N = 692; T2 N = 476) and community IDVA services (T1 N = 3544; T2 N = 2780), used as a comparator. Measures included indicators of sociodemographic characteristics, experience of abuse, health service use, health and safety outcomes. Multivariate analyses tested for differences in changes in abuse, health and factors influencing safety outcomes. Health service use data in the 6 months pre-and post- intervention were compared to generate potential cost savings by hospital IDVA services. RESULTS: Hospital IDVAs worked with survivors less visible to community IDVA services and facilitated intervention at an earlier point. Hospital IDVAs received higher referrals from health services and enabled access to a greater number of health resources. Hospital survivors were more likely to report greater reductions in and cessation of abuse. No differences were observed in health outcomes for hospital survivors. The odds of safety increased two-fold if hospital survivors received over five contacts with an IDVA or accessed six or more resources / programmes over a longer period of time. Six months preceding IDVA intervention, hospital survivors cost on average £2463 each in use of health services; community survivors cost £533 each. The cost savings observed among hospital survivors amounted to a total of £2050 per patient per year. This offset the average cost of providing hospital IDVA services. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital IDVAs can identify survivors not visible to other services and promote safety through intensive support and access to resources. The co-location of IDVAs within the hospital encouraged referrals to other health services and wider community agencies. Further research is required to establish the cost-effectiveness of hospital IDVA services, however our findings suggest these services could be an efficient use of health service resources.

Towards a national genomics medicine service: the challenges facing clinical-research hybrid practices and the case of the 100 000 genomes project.

Clinical practice and research are governed by distinct rules and regulations and have different approaches to, for example, consent and providing results. However, genomics is an example of where research and clinical practice have become codependent. The 100 000 genomes project (100kGP) is a hybrid venture where a person can obtain a clinical investigation only if he or she agrees to also participate in ongoing research-including research by industry and commercial companies. In this paper, which draws on 20 interviews with professional stakeholders involved in 100kGP, we investigate the ethical issues raised by this project's hybrid nature. While some interviewees thought the hybrid nature of 100kGP was its vanguard, interviewees identified several tensions around hybrid practice: how to decide who should be able to participate; how to determine whether offering results might unduly influence participation into wide-ranging but often as yet unknown research and how to ensure that patients/families do not develop false expectations about receiving results. These areas require further debate as 100kGP moves into routine healthcare in the form of the national genomic medicine service. To address the tensions identified, we explore the appropriateness of Faden et al.'s framework of ethical obligations for when research and clinical care are completely integrated. We also argue that enabling ongoing transparent and trustworthy communication between patients/families and professionals around the kinds of research that should be permitted in 100kGP will help to understand and ensure that expectations remain realistic. Our paper aims to encourage a focused discussion about these issues and to inform a new 'social contract' for research and clinical care in the health service.

Limitations and Pitfalls of Using Family Letters to Communicate Genetic Risk: a Qualitative Study with Patients and Healthcare Professionals.

European genetic testing guidelines recommend that healthcare professionals (HCPs) discuss the familial implications of any test with a patient and offer written material to help them share the information with family members. Giving patients these "family letters" to alert any relatives of their risk has become part of standard practice and has gone relatively unquestioned over the years. Communication with at-risk relatives will become an increasingly pressing issue as mainstream and routine practice incorporates broad genome tests and as the number of findings potentially relevant to relatives increases. This study therefore explores problems around the use of family letters to communicate about genetic risk. We conducted 16 focus groups with 80 HCPs, and 35 interviews with patients, recruited from across the UK. Data were analyzed thematically and we constructed four themes: 1) HCPs writing family letters: how to write them and why?, 2) Patients' issues with handing out family letters, 3) Dissemination becomes an uncontrolled form of communication, and 4) When the relative has the letter, is the patient's and HCP's duty discharged? We conclude by suggesting alternative and supplementary methods of communication, for example through digital tools, and propose that in comparison to communication by family letter, direct contact by HCPs might be a more appropriate and successful option.

Predictive Genetic Testing of Children for Adult-Onset Conditions: Negotiating Requests with Parents.

Healthcare professionals (HCPs) regularly face requests from parents for predictive genetic testing of children for adult-onset conditions. Little is known about how HCPs handle these test requests, given that guidelines recommend such testing is deferred to adulthood unless there is medical benefit to testing before that time. Our study explored the process of decision-making between HCPs and parents. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 HCPs in 8 regional genetic services across the UK, and data were thematically analysed. We found that instead of saying 'yes' or 'no' to such requests, many HCPs framed the consultation as an opportunity to negotiate the optimal time of testing. This, they argued, facilitates parents' considered decision-making, since parents' eventual decisions after requesting a test was often to defer testing their child. In cases where parents' requests remained a sustained wish, most HCPs said they would agree to test, concluding that not testing would not serve the child's wider best interest. As a strategy for determining the child's best interest and for facilitating shared decision-making, we recommend that HCPs re-frame requests for testing from parents as a discussion about the optimal time of testing for adult-onset disease.

Healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives on consent to clinical genetic testing: moving towards a more relational approach.

BACKGROUND: This paper proposes a refocusing of consent for clinical genetic testing, moving away from an emphasis on autonomy and information provision, towards an emphasis on the virtues of healthcare professionals seeking consent, and the relationships they construct with their patients. METHODS: We draw on focus groups with UK healthcare professionals working in the field of clinical genetics, as well as in-depth interviews with patients who have sought genetic testing in the UK's National Health Service (data collected 2013-2015). We explore two aspects of consent: first, how healthcare professionals consider the act of 'consenting' patients; and second how these professional accounts, along with the accounts of patients, deepen our understanding of the consent process. RESULTS: Our findings suggest that while healthcare professionals working in genetic medicine put much effort into ensuring patients' understanding about their impending genetic test, they acknowledge, and we show, that patients can still leave genetic consultations relatively uninformed. Moreover, we show how placing emphasis on the informational aspect of genetic testing is not always reflective of, or valuable to, patients' decision-making. Rather, decision-making is socially contextualised - also based on factors outside of information provision. CONCLUSIONS: A more collaborative on-going consent process, grounded in virtue ethics and values of honesty, openness and trustworthiness, is proposed.

Health-care professionals' responsibility to patients' relatives in genetic medicine: a systematic review and synthesis of empirical research.

PURPOSE: The extent of the responsibility of health-care professionals (HCPs) to ensure that patients' relatives are told of their risk is unclear. Current international guidelines take confidentiality to the individual patient as the default position, but some suggest that disclosure could be default and genetic information could be conceptualized as familial. METHODS: Our systematic review and synthesis of 17 studies explored the attitudes of HCPs, patients, and the public regarding the extent of HCPs' responsibility to relatives with respect to disclosure. RESULTS: Health-care professionals generally felt a responsibility to patients' relatives but perceived a variety of reasons why it would be difficult to act on this responsibility. Public/patient views were more wide-ranging. Participants identified several competing and overlapping arguments for and against HCP disclosure: guidelines do not permit/mandate it, privacy, medical benefit, impact on family dynamics, quality of communication, and respecting autonomy. CONCLUSION: We argue that HCPs can sometimes share genetic information without breaching confidentiality and that they could factor into their considerations the potential harm to family dynamics of nondisclosure. However, we need more nuanced research about their responsibilities to relatives, particularly as genomic tests are used more frequently in clinical practice.Genet Med 18 4, 290-301.

Recontact in clinical practice: a survey of clinical genetics services in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: To ascertain whether and how recontacting occurs in the United Kingdom. METHOD: A Web-based survey was administered online between October 2014 and July 2015. A link to the survey was circulated via an e-mail invitation to the clinical leads of the United Kingdom's 23 clinical genetics services, with follow-up with senior clinical genetics staff. RESULTS: The majority of UK services reported that they recontact patients and their family members. However, recontacting generally occurs in an ad hoc fashion when an unplanned event causes clinicians to review a file (a "trigger"). There are no standardized recontacting practices in the United Kingdom. More than half of the services were unsure whether formalized recontacting systems should be implemented. Some suggested greater patient involvement in the process of recontacting. CONCLUSION: This research suggests that a thorough evaluation of the efficacy and sustainability of potential recontacting systems within the National Health Service would be necessary before deciding whether and how to implement such a service or to create guidelines on best-practice models.Genet Med 18 9, 876-881.

What results to disclose, when, and who decides? Healthcare professionals' views on prenatal chromosomal microarray analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study explored the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the UK about what information should be disclosed, when; and whether women/parents should be given a choice as to what they wish to know. METHODS: Q-methodology was used to assess the views of 40 HCPs (genetic HCPs, fetal medicine experts, lab-scientists). RESULTS: Most participants agreed that variants of unknown clinical significance should not be disclosed. Participants were divided between those who considered variants of uncertain clinical significance helpful for parents and clinicians, and those who considered them harmful. Although recognising the potential disadvantages of disclosing risks for adult-onset conditions, participants thought it would be difficult to withhold such information once identified. Participants largely supported some parental involvement in determining which results should be returned. Most participants believed that information obtained via CMA testing in pregnancy should either be disclosed during pregnancy, or not at all. CONCLUSION: HCPs taking part in the study largely believed that variants that will inform the management of the pregnancy, or are relevant to other family members, should be reported. Recent UK guidelines, published after this research was completed, reflect these opinions.

'Is this knowledge mine and nobody else's? I don't feel that.' Patient views about consent, confidentiality and information-sharing in genetic medicine.

In genetic medicine, a patient's diagnosis can mean their family members are also at risk, raising a question about how consent and confidentiality should function in clinical genetics. This question is particularly pressing when it is unclear whether a patient has shared information. Conventionally, healthcare professionals view confidentiality at an individual level and 'disclosure without consent' as the exception, not the rule. The relational joint account model, by contrast, conceptualises genetic information as confidential at the familial level and encourages professionals to take disclosure as the default position. In this study, we interviewed 33 patients about consent and confidentiality and analysed data thematically. Our first theme showed that although participants thought of certain aspects of genetic conditions--for example, the way they affect day-to-day health--as somewhat personal, they perceived genetic information--for example, the mutation in isolation--as familial. Most thought these elements were separable and thought family members had a right to know the latter, identifying a broad range of harms that would justify disclosure. Our second theme illustrated that participants nonetheless had some concerns about what, if any, implications there would be of professionals treating such information as familial and they emphasised the importance of being informed about the way their information would be shared. Based on these results, we recommend that professionals take disclosure as the default position, but make clear that they will treat genetic information as familial during initial consultations and address any concerns therein.

Defining and managing incidental findings in genetic and genomic practice.

The rapidly declining costs and increasing speeds of whole-genome analysis mean that genetic testing is undergoing a shift from targeted approaches to broader ones that look at the entire genome. As whole-genome technologies gain widespread use, questions about the management of so-called incidental findings-those unrelated to the question being asked-need urgent consideration. In this review, we bring together current understanding and arguments about (1) appropriate terminology, (2) the determination of clinical utility and when to disclose incidental findings, (3) the differences in management and disclosure in clinical, research and commercial contexts and (4) ethical and practical issues about familial implications and recontacting those tested. We recommend that greater international consensus is developed around the disclosure and management of incidental findings, with particular attention to when, and how, less clear-cut results should be communicated. We suggest that there is no single term that captures all the issues around these kinds of findings and that different terms may, therefore, need to be used in different settings. We also encourage the use of clear consent processes, but suggest that the absence of consent should not always preclude disclosure. Finally, we recommend further research to identify ways to implement the use of a genome output as a resource, accessible over time, to facilitate appropriate disclosure and recontact when the significance of a previously unclear incidental finding is clarified.

Healthcare Professionals' Own Experiences of Domestic Violence and Abuse: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Systematic Review of Risk Markers and Consequences.

Background: Globally, healthcare professionals (HCPs) are increasingly asked to identify and respond to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) among patients. However, their own experiences of DVA have been largely ignored.Aim: To determine the prevalence of current and lifetime DVA victimisation among HCPs globally, and identify risk markers, consequences and support-seeking for DVA.Method: PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL ASSIA and ProQuest were searched. Studies about HCPs' personal experience of any type of DVA from any health service/country were included. Meta-analysis and narrative synthesis were adopted.Results: Fifty-one reports were included. Pooled lifetime prevalence was 31.3% (95% CI [24.7%, 38.7%] p < .001)) and past-year prevalence was 10.4% (95% CI [5.8%, 17.9%] p <.001). Pooled lifetime prevalence significantly differed (Qb=6.96, p < .01) between men (14.8%) and women (41.8%), and between HCPs in low-middle income (64.0%) and high-income countries (20.7%) (Qb = 31.41, p <.001). Risk markers were similar to those in the general population, but aspects of the HCP role posed additional and unique risks/vulnerabilities. Direct and indirect consequences of DVA meant HCP-survivors were less able to work to their best ability. While HCP-survivors were more likely than other HCPs to identify and respond to DVA among patients, doing so could be distressing. HCP-survivors faced unique barriers to seeking support. Being unable to access support - which is crucial for leaving or ending relationships with abusive people - leaves HCP-survivors entrapped.Conclusion: Specialised DVA interventions for HCPs are urgently needed, with adaptations for different groups and country settings. Future research should focus on developing interventions with HCP-survivors.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group domestic abuse perpetrator programme: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. METHODS: Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome is men's self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019.

Adapting the ADVANCE group program for digitally-supported delivery to reduce intimate partner violence by men in substance use treatment: a feasibility study.

Introduction: COVID-19 restrictions created barriers to "business as usual" in healthcare but also opened the door to innovation driven by necessity. This manuscript (1) describes how ADVANCE, an in-person group perpetrator program to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) against female (ex)partners by men in substance use treatment, was adapted for digitally-supported delivery (ADVANCE-D), and (2) explores the feasibility and acceptability of delivering ADVANCE-D to men receiving substance use treatment. Methods: Firstly, the person-based approach and mHealth development framework were used to iteratively adapt ADVANCE for digitally-supported delivery including conceptualization, formative research, and pre-testing. Then, a non-randomized feasibility study was conducted to assess male participants' eligibility, recruitment, and attendance rates and uptake of support offered to their (ex)partners. Exploratory analyses on reductions in IPV perpetration (assessed using the Abusive Behavior Inventory; ABI) and victimization (using the revised ABI; ABI-R) at the end of the program were performed. Longitudinal qualitative interviews with participants, their (ex)partners, and staff provided an understanding of the program's implementation, acceptability, and outcomes. Results: The adapted ADVANCE-D program includes one goal-setting session, seven online groups, 12 self-directed website sessions, and 12 coaching calls. ADVANCE-D includes enhanced risk management and support for (ex)partners. Forty-five participants who had perpetrated IPV in the past 12 months were recruited, forty of whom were offered ADVANCE-D, attending 11.4 (SD 9.1) sessions on average. Twenty-one (ex)partners were recruited, 13 of whom accepted specialist support. Reductions in some IPV perpetration and victimization outcome measures were reported by the 25 participants and 11 (ex)partners interviewed pre and post-program, respectively. Twenty-two participants, 11 (ex)partners, 12 facilitators, and 7 integrated support service workers were interviewed at least once about their experiences of participation. Overall, the program content was well-received. Some participants and facilitators believed digital sessions offered increased accessibility. Conclusion: The digitally-supported delivery of ADVANCE-D was feasible and acceptable. Remote delivery has applicability post-pandemic, providing greater flexibility and access. Given the small sample size and study design, we do not know if reductions in IPV were due to ADVANCE-D, time, participant factors, or chance. More research is needed before conclusions can be made about the efficacy of ADVANCE-D.

Sharing information about domestic violence and abuse in healthcare: an analysis of English guidance and recommendations for good practice.

BACKGROUND: Over two million adults experience domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in England and Wales each year. Domestic homicide reviews often show that health services have frequent contact with victims and perpetrators, but healthcare professionals (HCPs) do not share information related to DVA across healthcare settings and with other agencies or services. AIM: We aimed to analyse and highlight the commonalities, inconsistencies, gaps and ambiguities in English guidance for HCPs around medical confidentiality, information sharing or DVA specifically. SETTING: The English National Health Service. DESIGN AND METHOD: We conducted a desk-based review, adopting the READ approach to document analysis. This approach is a method of qualitative health policy research and involves four steps for gathering, and extracting information from, documents. Its four steps are: (1) Ready your materials, (2) Extract data, (3) Analyse data and (4) Distill your findings. Documents were identified by searching websites of national bodies in England that guide and regulate clinical practice and by backwards citation-searching documents we identified initially. RESULTS: We found 13 documents that guide practice. The documents provided guidance on (1) sharing information without consent, (2) sharing with or for multiagency risk assessment conferences (MARACs), (3) sharing for formal safeguarding and (4) sharing within the health service. Key findings were that guidance documents for HCPs emphasise that sharing information without consent can happen in only exceptional circumstances; documents are inconsistent, contradictory and ambiguous; and none of the documents, except one safeguarding guide, mention how coercive control can influence patients' free decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Guidance for HCPs on sharing information about DVA is numerous, inconsistent, ambiguous and lacking in detail, highlighting a need for coherent recommendations for cross-speciality clinical practice. Recommendations should reflect an understanding of the manifestations, dynamics and effects of DVA, particularly coercive control.

Researching Men's Violence Against Women as Feminist Women Researchers: The Tensions We Face.

Qualitative and feminist researchers aim to build rapport, show empathy, be non-judgemental, and equalise power imbalances. A crucial challenge researchers face is how to navigate and balance competing aims and values when interacting with and interviewing participants who have perpetrated intimate partner violence and abuse towards women. In this article, four female researchers evaluating perpetrator programmes for abusive men use reflexive analysis to identify the tensions encountered in such research. We outline how these tensions affected us and the data produced, and end with recommendations, which we hope will help prepare researchers, particularly women, for conducting interviews with violent/abusive men.