Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jun;49(2):85-93.
doi: 10.1363/psrh.12021. Epub 2017 Mar 8.

Implementation of a Family Planning Clinic-Based Partner Violence and Reproductive Coercion Intervention: Provider and Patient Perspectives

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Implementation of a Family Planning Clinic-Based Partner Violence and Reproductive Coercion Intervention: Provider and Patient Perspectives

Elizabeth Miller et al. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2017 Jun.

Abstract

Context: Despite multiple calls for clinic-based services to identify and support women victimized by partner violence, screening remains uncommon in family planning clinics. Furthermore, traditional screening, based on disclosure of violence, may miss women who fear reporting their experiences. Strategies that are sensitive to the signs, symptoms and impact of trauma require exploration.

Methods: In 2011, as part of a cluster randomized controlled trial, staff at 11 Pennsylvania family planning clinics were trained to offer a trauma-informed intervention addressing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion to all women seeking care, regardless of exposure to violence. The intervention sought to educate women about available resources and harm reduction strategies. In 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, 18 providers, five administrators and 49 patients completed semistructured interviews exploring acceptability of the intervention and barriers to implementation. Consensus and open coding strategies were used to analyze the data.

Results: Providers reported that the intervention increased their confidence in discussing intimate partner violence and reproductive coercion. They noted that asking patients to share the educational information with other women facilitated the conversation. Barriers to implementation included lack of time and not having routine reminders to offer the intervention. Patients described how receiving the intervention gave them important information, made them feel supported and less isolated, and empowered them to help others.

Conclusions: A universal intervention may be acceptable to providers and patients. However, successful implementation in family planning settings may require attention to system-level factors that providers view as barriers.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Miller E, et al. Intimate partner violence and health care–seeking patterns among female users of urban adolescent clinics. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2010;14(6):910–917. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gee RE, et al. Power over parity: intimate partner violence and issues of fertility control. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2009;201(2):148.e1–148.e7. - PubMed
    1. Keeling J, Birch L. The prevalence rates of domestic abuse in women attending a family planning clinic. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care. 2004;30(2):113–114. - PubMed
    1. Decker MR, Silverman JG, Raj A. Dating violence and sexually transmitted disease/HIV testing and diagnosis among adolescent females. Pediatrics. 2005;116(2):e272–e276. - PubMed
    1. Kazmerski T, et al. Use of reproductive and sexual health services among female family planning clinic clients exposed to partner violence and reproductive coercion. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2015;19(7):1490–1496. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms