Implementation and Impact of Intimate Partner Violence Screening Expansion in the Veterans Health Administration: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem with far-reaching consequences. The health care system plays an integral role in the detection of and response to IPV. Historically, the majority of IPV screening initiatives have targeted women of reproductive age, with little known about men's IPV screening experiences or the impact of screening on men's health care. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has called for an expansion of IPV screening, providing a unique opportunity for a large-scale evaluation of IPV screening and response across all patient populations. OBJECTIVE: In this protocol paper, we describe the recently funded Partnered Evaluation of Relationship Health Innovations and Services through Mixed Methods (PRISM) initiative, aiming to evaluate the implementation and impact of the VHA's IPV screening and response expansion, with a particular focus on identifying potential gender differences. METHODS: The PRISM Initiative is guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR 2.0) frameworks. We will use mixed methods data from 139 VHA facilities to evaluate the IPV screening expansion, including electronic health record data and qualitative interviews with patients, clinicians, and national IPV program leadership. Quantitative data will be analyzed using a longitudinal observational design with repeated measurement periods at baseline (T0), year 1 (T1), and year 2 (T2). Qualitative interviews will focus on identifying multilevel factors, including potential implementation barriers and facilitators critical to IPV screening and response expansion, and examining the impact of screening on patients and clinicians. RESULTS: The PRISM initiative was funded in October 2023. We have developed the qualitative interview guides, obtained institutional review board approval, extracted quantitative data for baseline analyses, and began recruitment for qualitative interviews. Reports of progress and results will be made available to evaluation partners and funders through quarterly and end-of-year reports. All data collection and analyses across time points are expected to be completed in June 2026. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this mixed methods evaluation will provide a comprehensive understanding of IPV screening expansion at the VHA, including the implementation and impact of screening and the scope of IPV detected in the VHA patient population. Moreover, data generated by this initiative have critical policy and clinical practice implications in a national health care system. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/59918.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Experience and Use in the Veterans Health Administration.

Importance: The practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well. Objective: To determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023. Exposure: Mental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients. Results: A total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, -7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, -7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for IPV.