Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review.

As one of the efforts to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV) and intimate partner homicide, countries have adopted legislation requiring professionals to report cases of IPV, or suspected IPV injuries, to the police or the criminal justice system. The term for this is mandatory reporting. In spite of its good intention, mandatory reporting of IPV is a controversial issue. The objective of this review was to systematically search for, appraise the quality of, and synthetize the evidence from quantitative and qualitative studies on mandatory reporting of IPV. A systematic review of the scientific literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. A comprehensive search was conducted through Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Criminal Justice Abstracts, and SveMed+. Articles were included if they (a) were peer-reviewed empirical studies rather than theories or discussions, (b) described mandatory reporting of IPV, and (c) were written in English or Scandinavian languages. No time limit was applied. Twenty-five research studies met the criteria for review. Victims were generally supportive of a law requiring professionals to report IPV, although subsamples' attitudes opposing mandatory reporting were presented as main findings in a substantial number of studies. Group differences between abused or nonabused women and knowledge about mandatory reporting of IPV among professionals was mixed and inconclusive. Few professionals had actually reported IPV under mandatory reporting. Empirical research appears to be scarce, with moderate to high degree of bias and with only limited recent development.

Going against patients' will? A qualitative study of how palliative health-care professionals handle competing considerations when children are excluded from parental illness and death.

PURPOSE: The Norwegian Health Personnel Act (HPA §10a) obliges health professionals to contribute to meeting minor children's need for information about their parents' illness and prognosis. Previous research has shown that many parents withhold information about illness and anticipated death from their children. This study explored main considerations for palliative health-care professionals in these situations, and how they negotiate conflicting considerations of confidentiality and child involvement. METHOD: This qualitative exploratory study involved semi-structured interviews with 11 palliative health-care professionals. Hermeneutics informed the data analysis. RESULTS: The health professionals' main considerations were sustaining patients' hope and building trust in the professional-patient relationship. Both concerns were grounded in respect for patient autonomy. The health professionals negotiated patient autonomy and child involvement in different ways, defined in the present analysis on a continuum ranging from granting full patient autonomy to going directly against patients' will. CONCLUSIONS: The professional-patient relationship is the primary consideration in the health care context, and decision making on the degree of children's involvement happens in a dialogical process between health professionals and patients. Close professional-patient relationships might increase the emotional impacts on health professionals, who consequently might give greater relative weight to patients' will. We propose that procedures for initiating collaboration with professionals in the child's everyday life context help health professionals involving the child without threatening trust.