From the Defense Health Board: Military Accessions and the Continuum of Mental Health Research.

The Defense Health Board conducted a year-long examination of mental health accession screening and related issues. In its August 2020 report, Examination of Mental Health Accession Screening: Predictive Value of Current Measures and Processes, the Board recommends a paradigm shift in how mental health impacts on readiness are understood and addressed. This shift can only occur with the development and implementation of a research plan that follows cohorts of military personnel from recruitment through their military career. The following article describes this research plan as an excerpt of the larger report.

Screening for Interpersonal Violence: Missed Opportunities and Potential Harms.

INTRODUCTION: Screening for interpersonal violence is used in healthcare settings to identify patients experiencing violence. However, using unvalidated screening tools may misclassify patients' experience with violence. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation adapted a previously validated intimate partner violence screening tool for use in assessing interpersonal violence and retained the tool's original scoring rubric, despite the new tool's broader scope. This study evaluates the scoring system for detecting safety concerns. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of adult patients and caregivers of pediatric patients at 7 primary care clinics and 4 emergency departments (2018-2019). Surveys included the adapted 4-item Hurt Insult Threat Scream tool. Questions are scored by frequency on a Likert scale (1=never; 5=frequently). Scores of 11-20 are considered positive for safety concerns. Two-sided Fisher's exact tests were used for descriptive analyses. Data analyses occurred in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Of 1,014 participants, 66 (6.5%) reported any frequency of physical violence. Of these, 54 (81.8%) did not reach the threshold score of 11. Of the 1,014 participants, 93 (9.2%) reported any frequency of physical violence or being threatened with harm; 76 of 93 participants (81.7%) scored <11. CONCLUSIONS: Using the original scoring criteria for the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream, >80% of participants reporting physical violence did not screen positive for potential safety concerns. The scoring criteria did not reliably identify participants experiencing or at high risk for violence. To improve patient safety, the adapted Hurt Insult Threat Scream scoring rubric should be updated on the basis of stakeholder input and additional validation studies.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Screening for Adverse Childhood Experiences in Prenatal Care.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are common among pregnant women and contribute to increased risk for negative perinatal outcomes, yet few clinicians screen prenatal patients for ACEs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of screening for ACEs in standard prenatal care. METHODS: We evaluated a 4-month pilot (March 2016-June 2016) to screen pregnant women (at ∼14-23 weeks of gestation) for ACEs and resiliency in two Kaiser Permanente Northern California medical centers (N = 480). We examined the acceptability of the screening to patients through telephone surveys (N = 210) and to clinicians through surveys and focus groups (N = 26). RESULTS: Most eligible patients (78%) were screened. Patients who received the screening were significantly more likely to be non-Hispanic White, Asian, or of "Other" or "Unknown" race/ethnicity than African American or Hispanic race/ethnicity (p = 0.02). Among those screened, 88% completed the questionnaires; 54% reported 0 ACEs, 28% reported 1-2 ACEs, and 18% reported ≥3 ACEs. Most patients were somewhat or very comfortable completing the questionnaires (91%) and discussing ACEs with their clinician (93%), and strongly or somewhat strongly agreed that clinicians should ask their prenatal patients about ACEs (85%). Clinicians reported significant pre- to postpilot increases in comfort discussing ACEs, providing education, and offering resources (ps < 0.01). Clinicians' willingness to screen for ACEs was contingent on adequate training, streamlined workflows, inclusion of resilience screening, and availability of mental health, parenting, and social work resources. CONCLUSION: ACEs screening as part of standard prenatal care is feasible and generally acceptable to patients. Women's health clinicians are willing to screen patients for ACEs when appropriately trained and adequate behavioral health referral resources are available.

Integrating intimate partner violence assessment and intervention into healthcare in the United States: a systems approach.

The Institute of Medicine, United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), and national healthcare organizations recommend screening and counseling for intimate partner violence (IPV) within the US healthcare setting. The Affordable Care Act includes screening and brief counseling for IPV as part of required free preventive services for women. Thus, IPV screening and counseling must be implemented safely and effectively throughout the healthcare delivery system. Health professional education is one strategy for increasing screening and counseling in healthcare settings, but studies on improving screening and counseling for other health conditions highlight the critical role of making changes within the healthcare delivery system to drive desired improvements in clinician screening practices and health outcomes. This article outlines a systems approach to the implementation of IPV screening and counseling, with a focus on integrated health and advocacy service delivery to support identification and interventions, use of electronic health record (EHR) tools, and cross-sector partnerships. Practice and policy recommendations include (1) ensuring staff and clinician training in effective, client-centered IPV assessment that connects patients to support and services regardless of disclosure; (2) supporting enhancement of EHRs to prompt appropriate clinical care for IPV and facilitate capturing more detailed and standardized IPV data; and (3) integrating IPV care into quality and meaningful use measures. Research directions include studies across various health settings and populations, development of quality measures and patient-centered outcomes, and tests of multilevel approaches to improve the uptake and consistent implementation of evidence-informed IPV screening and counseling guidelines.

Transforming the healthcare response to intimate partner violence and taking best practices to scale.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent among adolescent and adult women, with significant physical, sexual, and mental health consequences. In 2011, the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Preventive Services for Women consensus report recommended universal screening for violence as a component of women's preventive services; this policy has been adopted by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). These policy developments require that effective clinic-based interventions be identified, easily implemented, and taken to scale. METHODS: To foster dialogue about implementing effective interventions, we convened a symposium entitled "Responding to Violence Against Women: Emerging Evidence, Implementation Science, and Innovative Interventions," on May 21, 2012. Drawing on multidisciplinary expertise, the agenda integrated data on the prevalence and health impact of IPV violence, with an overview of the implementation science framework, and a panel of innovative IPV screening interventions. Recommendations were generated for developing, testing, and implementing clinic-based interventions to reduce violence and mitigate its health impact. RESULTS: The strength of evidence supporting specific IPV screening interventions has improved, but the optimal implementation and dissemination strategies are not clear. Implementation science, which seeks to close the evidence to program gap, is a useful framework for improving screening and intervention uptake and ensuring the translation of research findings into routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: Findings have substantial relevance to the broader research, clinical, and practitioner community. Our conference proceedings fill a timely gap in knowledge by informing practitioners as they strive to implement universal IPV screening and guiding researchers as they evaluate the success of implementing IPV interventions to improve women's health and well-being.