Nordby Christine, Douglas Kevin S, Vølstad Astrid Gravdal, Brevik Thea Beate, Bjørkly Stål Kapstø, Vatnar Solveig Karin Bø
Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Molde University College, Molde, Norway.
Department of Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada.
BMC Public Health. 2025 May 6;25(1):1664. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-22637-z.
Mandatory reporting is a common legislative preventative measure for several types of crimes, among them family violence and specifically intimate partner violence (IPV). Among the individuals who are mandated to report under the law are professionals working with IPV victims and perpetrators in their practice. However, little is known about which characteristics are associated with compliance with the mandatory reporting of IPV (MR-IPV) law, on the one hand, and choosing not to report IPV, on the other.
The current study sampled 357 professionals from 6 different agencies working with IPV victims and/or perpetrators. Six dichotomous outcome variables of compliance with MR-IPV and choosing not to report were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. The independent variables were professionals' perceptions and knowledge of MR-IPV, context and workplace conditions, and experience with IPV cases and risk assessment.
Findings showed that risk of compliance with MR-IPV varied between complying with and without consent. Perceived applicability of MR-IPV for an IPV victim was the only variable that had significantly positively odds ratio for both compliance with and without consent. For choosing not to report, significant variables varied between whether the incident had taken place sometime throughout participants' careers or during the last year, and whether it concerned a victim or a perpetrator. However, knowledge of MR-IPV, experience with IPV cases, expectations of MR-IPV, perceived workplace time management, and perception of compliance were significant for choosing not to report.
Knowledge of the characteristics that are associated with professionals' compliance with MR-IPV is essential to better understand the application of MR-IPV, to implement practice that is consistent with law, and ultimately to prevent IPV. Further research is needed to explore the context of compliance with MR-IPV.
强制报告是针对多种犯罪类型的常见立法预防措施，其中包括家庭暴力，特别是亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）。法律规定必须报告的人员包括在工作中接触IPV受害者和施暴者的专业人员。然而，一方面，对于哪些特征与遵守IPV强制报告（MR - IPV）法律相关，另一方面，对于选择不报告IPV的相关特征，我们知之甚少。
本研究从6个不同机构中抽取了357名与IPV受害者和/或施暴者打交道的专业人员作为样本。通过多元逻辑回归分析了与遵守MR - IPV和选择不报告相关的6个二分结果变量。自变量包括专业人员对MR - IPV的认知和了解、背景及工作场所条件，以及处理IPV案件的经验和风险评估。
研究结果表明，遵守MR - IPV的风险在经同意遵守和未经同意遵守之间存在差异。认为MR - IPV适用于IPV受害者是唯一一个在经同意遵守和未经同意遵守两种情况下均具有显著正优势比的变量。对于选择不报告的情况，显著变量因事件是发生在参与者整个职业生涯中的某个时候还是过去一年，以及事件涉及的是受害者还是施暴者而有所不同。然而，对MR - IPV的了解、处理IPV案件的经验、对MR - IPV的期望、感知到的工作场所时间管理以及对遵守情况的认知对于选择不报告具有重要意义。
了解与专业人员遵守MR - IPV相关的特征对于更好地理解MR - IPV的应用、实施符合法律的实践以及最终预防IPV至关重要。需要进一步研究以探索遵守MR - IPV的背景情况。
