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.

Integrating Intimate Partner Violence Screening Programs in Primary Care: Results from a Hybrid-II Implementation-Effectiveness RCT.

INTRODUCTION: The Veterans Health Administration initiated implementation facilitation to integrate intimate partner screening programs in primary care. This study investigates implementation facilitation's impact on implementation and clinical effectiveness outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A cluster randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid-II implementation-effectiveness trial (January 2021-April 2022) was conducted amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Implementation facilitation was applied at 9 Veterans Health Administration facilities, staged across 2 waves. Participants were all women receiving care at participating primary care clinics 3 months before (pre-implementation facilitation n=2,272) and 9 months after initiation of implementation facilitation (implementation facilitation n=5,149). INTERVENTION: Implementation facilitation included an operations-funded external facilitator working for 6 months with a facility-funded internal facilitator from participating clinics. The pre-implementation facilitation period comprised implementation as usual in the Veterans Health Administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were changes in (1) reach of intimate partner violence (IPV) screening programs among eligible women (i.e., those seen within participating clinics during the assessment period; implementation outcome) and (2) disclosure rates among screened women (effectiveness outcome). Secondary outcomes included disclosure rates among all eligible women and post-screening psychosocial service use. Administrative data were analyzed. RESULTS: For primary outcomes, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were nearly 3 times more likely to be screened for IPV than women seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.70, 95% CI=2.46, 2.97). Women screened during the implementation facilitation period were not more likely to disclose IPV than those screened during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=1.14, 95% CI=0.86, 1.51). For secondary outcomes, owing to increased reach of screening during implementation facilitation, women seen during the implementation facilitation period were more likely to disclose IPV than those seen during the pre-implementation facilitation period (OR=2.09, 95% CI=1.52, 2.86). Women screened during implementation facilitation were more likely to use post-screening psychosocial services than those screened during pre-implementation facilitation (OR=1.29, 95% CI=1.06, 1.57). CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that implementation facilitation may be a promising strategy for increasing the reach of IPV screening programs in primary care, thereby increasing IPV detection and strengthening connections to support services among the patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov NCT04106193.

Evaluation of the Strength at Home Group Intervention for Intimate Partner Violence in the Veterans Affairs Health System.

Importance: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious and prevalent public health issue that is interconnected with experiences of trauma, mental and physical health difficulties, and health disparities. Strength at Home (SAH) is a group intervention for persons using IPV in their relationships. Although previous studies have provided evidence of SAH's effectiveness in reducing IPV, its patient outcomes as implemented within organized health care have not been examined. Objective: To evaluate patient outcomes from implementation of SAH in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health system. Design, Setting, and Participants: This quality improvement study evaluated patient outcomes from a national implementation and training program conducted between December 11, 2015, and September 24, 2021. Data were collected as part of treatment and submitted by clinicians at 73 VA health care facilities. Patients were 1754 veterans seeking care aimed at addressing and/or preventing their use of aggression in intimate relationships. They completed 1 pretreatment assessment and 1 follow-up assessment in the immediate weeks after group completion. Intervention: Strength at Home is a 12-week trauma-informed and cognitive behavioral group intervention to address and prevent the use of IPV in relationships. Main Outcomes and Measures: Changes in IPV were measured with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Changes in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms were measured with the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5, and alcohol misuse was measured with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Results: The study included 1754 participants (mean [SD] age, 44.3 [13.0] years; 1421 men [81%]), of whom 1088 (62%) were involved with the criminal legal system for IPV charges. Analyses indicate that SAH was associated with reductions in use of physical IPV (odds ratio, 3.28; percentage difference from before to after treatment, -0.17 [95% CI, -0.21 to -0.13]) and psychological IPV (odds ratio, 2.73; percentage difference from before to after treatment, -0.23 [95% CI, -0.27 to -0.19]), coercive control behaviors (odds ratio, 3.19; percentage difference from before to after treatment, -0.18 [95% CI, -0.22 to -0.14), PTSD symptoms (mean change, -4.00; 95% CI, 0.90-7.09; Hedges g = 0.10), and alcohol misuse (mean change, 2.70; 95% CI, 1.54-3.86; Hedges g = 0.24). Conclusions and Relevance: In this quality improvement study of the patient outcomes after implementation of SAH, results suggested that the program was associated with reductions in IPV behaviors, PTSD symptoms, and alcohol misuse. Results also suggest that IPV intervention in routine health care at VA health care facilities was successful; extension to other organized health care systems could be warranted.

Recovering from Intimate Partner Violence through Strengths and Empowerment (RISE): Initial Evaluation of the Clinical Effects of RISE Administered in Routine Care in the US Veterans Health Administration.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a common concern among military Veterans that negatively impacts health. The United States' Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has launched a national IPV Assistance Program (IPVAP) to provide comprehensive services to Veterans, their families and caregivers, and VHA employees who use or experience IPV. Grounded in a holistic, Veteran-centered psychosocial rehabilitation framework that guides all facets of the program, the IPVAP initiated the pilot implementation of a novel intervention called Recovering from IPV through Strengths and Empowerment (RISE). This evidence-based, person-centered, trauma-informed, and empowerment-oriented brief counseling intervention is designed to support those who experience IPV and to improve their psychosocial wellbeing. This program evaluation study describes clinical outcomes from patients who participated in a pilot implementation of RISE in routine care. We examined changes in general self-efficacy, depression, and valued living, as well as treatment satisfaction among patients who received RISE and completed program evaluation measures at VHA facilities during the pilot. Results from 45 patients (84% women) indicate that RISE was associated with significant pretreatment to posttreatment improvements in self-efficacy, depression, and valued living (Cohen's d s of 0.97, 1.09, and 0.51, respectively). Patients reported high satisfaction with treatment. Though preliminary results were similar across gender and IPV types, findings from the evaluation of the pilot implementation of RISE demonstrate the intervention's feasibility, acceptability, and clinical utility in routine VHA care and inform the scalability of RISE. Additionally, findings provide preliminary support for the effectiveness and acceptability of RISE with men. Modification to RISE and its implementation are discussed, which may be useful to other settings implementing IPV interventions.

Assessing the Veterans Health Administration's response to intimate partner violence among women: protocol for a randomized hybrid type 2 implementation-effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in the United States (US) remains a complex public health crisis. Women who experience IPV are among the most vulnerable patients seen in primary care. Screening increases the detection of IPV and, when paired with appropriate response interventions, can mitigate the health effects of IPV. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has encouraged evidence-based IPV screening programs since 2014, yet adoption is modest and questions remain regarding the optimal ways to implement these practices, which are not yet available within the majority of VA primary care clinics. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper describes the planned evaluation of VA's nationwide implementation of IPV screening programs in primary care clinics through a randomized implementation-effectiveness hybrid type 2 trial. With the support of our VA operational partners, we propose a stepped wedge design to compare the impact of two implementation strategies of differing intensities (toolkit + implementation as usual vs. toolkit + implementation facilitation) and investigate the clinical effectiveness of IPV screening programs. Using balanced randomization, 16-20 VA Medical Centers will be assigned to receive implementation facilitation in one of three waves, with implementation support lasting 6 months. Implementation facilitation in this effort consists of the coordinated efforts of the two types of facilitators, external and internal. Implementation facilitation is compared to dissemination of a toolkit plus implementation as usual. We propose a mixed methods approach to collect quantitative (clinical records data) and qualitative (key informant interviews) implementation outcomes, as well as quantitative (clinical records data) clinical effectiveness outcomes. We will supplement these data collection methods with provider surveys to assess discrete implementation strategies used before, during, and following implementation facilitation. The integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework will guide the qualitative data collection and analysis. Summative data will be analyzed using the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. DISCUSSION: This research will advance national VHA efforts by identifying the practices and strategies useful for enhancing the implementation of IPV screening programs, thereby ultimately improving services for and health of women seen in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04106193. Registered on 23 September 2019.