Development and Evaluation of a Community Advisory Board for Family Violence.

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important risk factor for child physical abuse, most IPV-exposed children are not evaluated for abusive injuries. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) was formed to (a) optimize a program to evaluate IPV-exposed children for abusive injuries and (b) inform research methods to engage IPV victims and their children. The objectives of this study were to implement and to evaluate the family violence CAB. Following best practices on CAB formation, we recruited local stakeholders with key roles as service providers, community leaders, and knowledge experts in IPV, child abuse, and emergency care. Fourteen members met bimonthly to develop a family-centered intervention and to inform research and advocacy activities. A shared memorandum of understanding outlined goals and objectives. One year after the CAB's implementation, a research assistant interviewed CAB members to understand their experiences, perceived benefits of participation, and desired improvements. Eleven CAB members, including an IPV survivor, participated. Emerging categories included (a) motivations to join the CAB (victim advocacy), (b) benefits of participation (development of relationships among members and increased acceptability of research methods), (c) facilitators of sustainability (program adaptability and development of trust), and (d) desired improvements (case-based follow-up). The CAB was successfully implemented and facilitated the development of collaborative relationships among stakeholders with key roles in IPV and child abuse. The CAB led to community member-proposed changes in research activities and clinical care for victims of IPV.

Evaluation of Children after Caregiver Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study of Barriers, Facilitators, and Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care.

OBJECTIVE: To identify barriers and facilitators of evaluating children exposed to caregiver intimate partner violence (IPV) and develop a strategy to optimize the evaluation. STUDY DESIGN: Using the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment) framework, we conducted qualitative interviews of 49 stakeholders, including emergency department clinicians (n = 18), child abuse pediatricians (n = 15), child protective services staff (n = 12), and caregivers who experienced IPV (n = 4), and reviewed meeting minutes of a family violence community advisory board (CAB). Researchers coded and analyzed interviews and CAB minutes using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Codes were expanded and revised until a final structure emerged. RESULTS: Four themes emerged: (1) benefits of evaluation, including the opportunity to assess children for physical abuse and to engage caregivers; (2) barriers, including limited evidence about the risk of abuse in these children, burdening a resource-limited system, and the complexity of IPV; (3) facilitators, including collaboration between medical and IPV providers; and (4) recommendations for trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC) in which a child's evaluation is leveraged to link caregivers with an IPV advocate to address the caregiver's needs. CONCLUSIONS: Routine evaluation of IPV-exposed children may lead to the detection of physical abuse and linkage to services for the child and the caregiver. Collaboration, improved data on the risk of child physical abuse in the context of IPV and implementation of TVIC may improve outcomes for families experiencing IPV.