Mentor mother support for mothers experiencing intimate partner violence in family practice: A qualitative study of three different perspectives on the facilitators and barriers of implementation.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly prevalent and associated with physical and mental health problems. Mentor mother support is a low threshold intervention in family practice consisting of support by non-professionals trained to support mothers experiencing IPV. A mentor mother support study showed reduced exposure to IPV and decreased symptoms of depression. OBJECTIVES: Identify factors determining implementation success of mentor mother support in family practice. METHODS: Individual interviews were conducted with 12 family physicians, 16 abused mothers and three mentor mothers. Four mentor mothers participated in a focus group. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: The identification and discussion of abuse is hindered by family physicians' attitudes because they considered mothers experiencing IPV as a difficult target group with a responsibility of their own to break out of their violent situation. Some family physicians doubted the partner's violence because he was known as a patient as well. Acceptance of mentor mother support is related to the readiness for change of mothers experiencing IPV. Mentor mothers facilitate acceptance and completion of their support by connecting as a friend who is equal and less threatening than professionals. CONCLUSION: To improve successful implementation of mentor mother support in primary care, we should focus on family physicians' attitudes towards IPV. To change these attitudes, we recommend continuous training of family physicians. By being paraprofessional friends, mentor mothers offer low threshold support that is complementary to professional support and should be embedded more widely in primary care. [Box: see text].

Are gynaecological and pregnancy-associated conditions in family practice indicators of intimate partner violence?

BACKGROUND: Some gynaecological and pregnancy-associated conditions are more common in abused women than in non-abused women, but this has not been examined in family practice. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence in family practice and to investigate whether gynaecological and pregnancy-associated conditions are more common in abused women than in non-abused women. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional waiting room survey in 12 family practices in the Netherlands in 2012. Women were eligible if they were of 18 years or older. Questionnaires measured IPV and gynaecological and pregnancy-associated conditions. Chi-square tests were used to assess the differences in gynaecological and pregnancy-associated conditions between abused women and non-abused women. RESULTS: The response rate was 86% (262 of 306 women). The past-year prevalence of IPV in women who had had an intimate relationship in the past year and were not accompanied by their partner was 8.7% (n = 195). Lifetime prevalence of women who had ever had an intimate relationship, but not in the past year, was 17.6% (n = 51). Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) [odds ratio (OR) = 4.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.7-12.5, n = 240], menstrual disorders (OR = 3.7, 95% CI = 1.2-11.2, n = 143), sexual problems (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.2-9.3, n = 229), miscarriages (OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.062-5.8, n = 202) and induced abortions (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.028-7.3, n = 202) were significantly more common in abused women than in non-abused women. CONCLUSION: Family physicians should ask about IPV when women present with STIs, menstrual disorders, sexual problems, miscarriages or induced abortions. To improve the recognition of IPV, future research needs to investigate whether a combination of symptoms offers improved prediction of IPV.