Intimate partner violence victimization and parenting: A systematic review.

Early studies examining parenting in the setting of intimate partner violence (IPV) often focus on abuse by the IPV perpetrator or effects of long term exposure. This review addresses how intimate partner violence impacts victim parenting. Seven databases were searched for the time period 1970-2015. Included were comparative studies involving children 11 years or younger. Quality ranking was based on: confirmation of victim status, consideration of co-perpetration, heterogeneity of the population, and standardization of measurements. Of 13,038 studies reviewed, 33 included studies showed that victimization is associated with negative parenting practices. Based on data presented within individual studies, 21 studies were eligible for meta-analysis which demonstrated modest effect sizes with high levels of heterogeneity. There was a negative correlation between IPV and positive parenting (r = -0.08; 95% CI: -.12, - .04); positive correlation between IPV and physical aggression (r = .17; 95% CI: .11, .23) and neglect (r = .12; 95% CI: .01, .23); and a trend toward positive correlation between IPV and psychological aggression (r = .23; 95% CI: -.94, .47). A synthesis of studies unsuitable for meta-analysis reinforced these findings. The review demonstrated ongoing methodological issues with extant literature.

Integrating primary care and behavioral health with four special populations: Children with special needs, people with serious mental illness, refugees, and deaf people.

Special patient populations can present unique opportunities and challenges to integrating primary care and behavioral health services. This article focuses on four special populations: children with special needs, persons with severe and persistent mental illness, refugees, and deaf people who communicate via sign language. The current state of primary care and behavioral health collaboration regarding each of these four populations is examined via Doherty, McDaniel, and Baird's (1996) five-level collaboration model. The section on children with special needs offers contrasting case studies that highlight the consequences of effective versus ineffective service integration. The challenges and potential benefits of service integration for the severely mentally ill are examined via description of PRICARe (Promoting Resources for Integrated Care and Recovery), a model program in Colorado. The discussion regarding a refugee population focuses on service integration needs and emerging collaborative models as well as ways in which refugee mental health research can be improved. The section on deaf individuals examines how sign language users are typically marginalized in health care settings and offers suggestions for improving the health care experiences and outcomes of deaf persons. A well-integrated model program for deaf persons in Austria is described. All four of these special populations will benefit from further integration of primary care and mental health services.