Ann Fam Med. 2022 Apr 1;20(20 Suppl 1):2822. doi: 10.1370/afm.20.s1.2822.
Context: One in five men report lifetime intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration defined as using physical force against an intimate partner. Two in three male IPV perpetrators seek routine health services. Family medicine physicians can use IPV perpetration screening tools validated in healthcare, and potentially refer men to local battering intervention programs. However, family medicine physicians feel unprepared to screen male patients for IPV due to lack of knowledge and training. Objective: understand family medicine provider and staff feasibility and acceptability of identification and response to male patient IPV perpetration. Study Design and Analysis: individual online, audio-recorded interviews transcribed verbatim. Three research team members (family medicine physician, qualitative analyst, data scientist) used qualitative content analysis to develop codes and themes. Setting: two Midwestern academic family medicine outpatient centers. Population studied: family medicine clinic providers and staff. Outcome measures: interview guide reviewed experiences talking to male patients about and identification of IPV perpetration, reviewing screening results, referral, intervention, and organizational challenges. Results: 10 family medicine providers (medical director, physicians, psychologist, nurses, social workers) and staff (medical assistants) were interviewed 2020-2021. Providers and staff described few experiences speaking with male patients about IPV but reported knowledge of male IPV through discussion with patients' partners. IPV identification can occur through patient self-read questionnaire or by providers asking questions of patients with at-risk behaviors. Subjects recognized IPV perpetration screening barriers such as trust and patient comfort, and facilitators to screening including electronic medical record prompts and patient portal use. Providers described ways to increase patient use of interventions such as warm referral and virtual visits. Subjects described organizational challenges to IPV perpetration identification and response including limited time and resources, but hypothesized that training could improve implementation. Conclusions: family medicine providers and staff describe various methods to identify and respond to male patient IPV perpetration, including use of a team approach, warm referrals, recognizing patient and provider barriers, and building on continuity relationships already established in primary care.
五分之一的男性报告称曾有过终生亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）行为，即对亲密伴侣使用武力。三分之二的男性 IPV 施暴者会寻求常规的医疗保健服务。家庭医学医师可以使用在医疗保健中经过验证的 IPV 施暴筛查工具，并有可能将男性转介到当地的虐待干预项目。然而，家庭医学医师由于缺乏知识和培训而感到无法对男性患者进行 IPV 筛查。目的：了解家庭医学提供者和工作人员对识别和应对男性患者 IPV 施暴的可行性和可接受性。研究设计和分析：个体在线、录音访谈并逐字转录。三名研究团队成员（家庭医学医师、定性分析员、数据科学家）使用定性内容分析来制定编码和主题。设置：两个中西部学术性家庭医学门诊中心。研究人群：家庭医学诊所的提供者和工作人员。结果测量：访谈指南回顾了与男性患者谈论和识别 IPV 施暴、审查筛查结果、转介、干预和组织挑战的经验。结果：2020 年至 2021 年，对 10 名家庭医学提供者（医疗主任、医生、心理学家、护士、社会工作者）和工作人员（医疗助理）进行了采访。提供者和工作人员描述了与男性患者谈论 IPV 的经验很少，但通过与患者伴侣的讨论了解了男性 IPV。可以通过患者自我阅读问卷或提供者询问有风险行为的患者来识别 IPV。研究对象认识到 IPV 施暴筛查的障碍，如信任和患者舒适度，以及筛查的促进因素，如电子病历提示和患者门户使用。提供者描述了增加患者使用干预措施的方法，如温馨转介和虚拟就诊。研究对象描述了 IPV 施暴识别和应对的组织挑战，包括时间和资源有限，但假设培训可以改善实施。结论：家庭医学提供者和工作人员描述了各种识别和应对男性患者 IPV 施暴的方法，包括使用团队方法、温馨转介、认识到患者和提供者的障碍，并在初级保健中已经建立的连续性关系的基础上进行。
