Background
Methods1
Search strategy
Inclusion criteria
Data extraction and analysis
Methodological quality assessment
Results
Author | Year (Country) | Study objective | Qualitative Method | Sample | Sample | Years’ experience (mean years) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Arboit et al. [42] | 2020 (Brazil) | Determine the potential and limitations of Primary Health Care professionals to identify situations of violence against women. | Semi-structured interview | Health providers/professionals | n = 21 | < 5 |
Aziz et al. [51] | 2019 (Egypt) | Assess perceptions and practices of screening for DV and to identify predictors of their attitude and behaviour of screening for DV in Assiut University Hospital. | Focus-group discussions | Physicians and nurses | n = 22 | < 5 |
Danitz et al. [23] | 2019 (USA) | Focus on feedback from a wide array of providers regarding the acceptability and feasibility of RISE, and associated recommendations for refinements of content and context in order to increase the likelihood of the usefulness, acceptability, and feasibility of the RISE intervention to VHA providers, the end-users, should RISE prove to be effective. | Semi-structured telephone interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 2 | < 10 |
Gomez-Fernandez et al. [45] | 2019 (Spain) | Use reflections of primary care midwives to know the barriers and facilitators for detecting IPV during pregnancy. | Semi-structured individual interviews | Midwives | n = 12 | 10+ |
Hatcher et al. [46] | 2019 (South Africa) | Explore the views of patients, health providers, and community members around assessing and addressing IPV in this setting. | In-depth interviews and focus group discussions | Health providers/professionals | n = 8 | N/S |
Rahmqvist et al. [40] | 2019 (Sweden) | Describe nurses’ experiences when caring for victims of violence and their family members in the emergency department. | Semi-structured interviews | Registered nurses | n = 12 | 10+ |
Sun et al. [49] | 2019 (China) | Investigate the barriers of Chinese PCPs toward managing DV, including barriers of recognition, management, and referrals of these patients. | Focus-group discussions | Primary Care Physicians | n = 26 | 10+ |
van der Wath [47] | 2019 (South Africa) | Uncover discourses that may help understand emergency nurses’ responses towards women exposed to intimate partner violence. | Semi-structured focus group discussions | Nurses | n = 15 | N/S |
Wild et al. [48] | 2019 (Australia) | Investigate the barriers midwives face in identifying, enquiring, responding and referring. | In-depth interviews and group discussions | Midwives | n = 36 | 10+ |
Wyatt et al. [30] | 2019 (USA) | Identify if recently licensed registered nurses screen for intimate partner violence, how they screen, which patients are screened, and how pre- licensure education and current workplace training has influenced these screening decisions and behaviours. | Interviews | Nurses | n = 16 | < 5 |
Alvarez et al. [21] | 2018 (USA) | Describe how healthcare workers serving primarily low-income Latina populations are currently screening and responding to IPV disclosure. | Semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 17 | 10+ |
Horwood et al. [36] | 2018 (UK) | Explore the perceptions and experiences of sexual health clinic staff and DVA advocates after participation in the IRIS ADViSE pilot and to investigate factors which may influence implementation and outcomes. | Semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 17 | N/S |
Henriksen et al. [57] | 2017 (Norway) | Gain an in-depth understanding of midwives’ experiences with routine enquiry for intimate partner violence during the antenatal period. | Semi-structured interviews | Midwives | n = | < 10 |
Jack et al. [33] | 2017 (Canada) | Develop strategies for the identification and assessment of intimate partner violence in a nurse home visitation programme. | Focus-group and individual interviews | Nurses | n = 32 | N/S |
McCauley et al. [37] | 2017 (UK) | Investigate the knowledge and perceptions of domestic violence among doctors who provide routine antenatal and postnatal care at healthcare facilities in Pakistan. In addition, we explored possible management options, enabling factors of and barriers to routine screening of domestic violence. | Semi-structured interviews | Doctors (providing routine antenatal and postnatal care) | n = 25 | 10+ |
Sundborg et al. [41] | 2017 (Sweden) | Improve the understanding of DNs’ experiences of encountering women exposed to IPV. | In-depth interviews | District nurses | n = 11 | N/S |
Williams et al. [28] | 2017 (USA) | Examine variations in the implementation of IPV screening practices and to explore both barriers and facilitators that providers experience. | Semi-structured, in-depth interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 10 | N/S |
Zijilstra et al. [60] | 2017 (The Netherlands) | Explore if similar barriers to identification and management of IPV played a role at a Dutch ED to find possible angles for improving care for victims of IPV. | Semi-structured interviews | Emergency Department | n = 18 | > 5 |
Al-Natour et al. [20] | 2016 (USA) | Describe Jordanian nurses’ roles and practices in screening for intimate partner violence. | Semi-structured interviews | Nurses | n = 12 | N/S |
Bender [22] | 2016 (USA) | Explore and describe healthcare providers’ and survivors’ perspectives on IPV with the aim of improving healthcare delivery in rural communities. | Semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 7 | 10+ |
Fay-Hillier et al. [24] | 2016 (USA) | Explore IPV screening practices of RNs who currently work in the ED and what influenced their screening practices. | Semi-structured interviews | Registered Nurses | n = 21 | 10+ |
Kopcavar et al. [58] | 2016 (Slovenia) | Obtain a deeper insight into the attitudes of physicians towards screening for domestic violence. We wanted to identify the barriers to screening for violence of family doctors in their respective populations, and to learn about their experiences and obstacles in the active detection of violence. | Semi-structured interviews | Family doctors (working in rural or urban environments) | n = 10 | N/S |
Pitter [54] | 2016 (Jamaica) | Assess midwives’ knowledge and attitudes when encountering GBV in their practice in Kingston, Jamaica. | Focus-group discussions | Midwives | n = 6 | > 5 |
Wilson et al. [29] | 2016 (USA) | Explore the experiences of healthcare providers who have screened for and/ or addressed IPV with MSFW women patients. | In-depth interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 9 | N/S |
Visentin et al. [43] | 2015 (Brazil) | Identify the actions conducted by primary health care nurses for women in situations of domestic violence. | Semi-structured interviews | Nurses | n = 17 | > 10 |
Briones-Vozmediano et al. [44] | 2014 (Spain) | Explore the experience of service providers in Spain regarding their daily professional encounters with battered immigrant women as well as their perception of this group’s help-seeking process and the eventual abandonment of the same. | In-depth interviews and focus-group discussions | Health providers/professionals | n = 9 | N/S |
Gotlib Conn et al. [32] | 2014 (Canada) | Identify knowledge gaps, perceived barriers and enablers for practising IPV screening in the clinical orthopaedic setting. | Focus-group discussions | Orthopedic surgeons | n = 18 | 10+ |
Mauri et al. [53] | 2015 (Italy) | Explore midwives’ knowledge and clinical experience of domestic violence among pregnant women, with particular emphasis on their perceptions of their professional role. | Semi-structured interviews | Midwives | n = 15 | 10+ |
McCall-Hosenfeld et al. [26] | 2014 (USA) | Assess the opinions and practices of primary care physicians caring for rural women with regard to IPV identification, the scope and severity of IPV as a health problem, how PCPs respond to IPV in their practices, and barriers to optimized IPV care in their communities. | Semi-structured interviews | Internists, family practitioners and obstetrician-gynecologists | n = 19 | 10+ |
Papadakaki et al. [52] | 2014 (Greece) | Explore the perceptions and practices of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the identification and management of victimized patients in primary care settings. | Focus-group interviews | General Practitioners | n = 18 | 10+ |
Ramachandran et al. [27] | 2013 (USA) | Describe screening practices and factors that influence this process among health care workers in sexual and reproductive health clinics in Baltimore City. | In-depth interviews | Healthcare providers (nurses) | n = 14 | N/S |
Usta et al. [55] | 2014 (Lebanon) | Explore physicians’ attitudes about responding to DV, their perception of the physician’s role, and the factors that influence their response. | Semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 67 | > 5 |
Baird et al. [35] | 2013 (UK) | Evaluate the degree to which practice changes identified in the 2004/ 2005 evaluation of the Bristol Pregnancy Domestic Violence Programme (BPDVP) for routine enquiry for domestic abuse have been maintained. | Focus-group interviews | Midwives | n = 11 | 10+ |
Colombini et al. [56] | 2013 (Malaysia) | Explore the views and attitudes of health providers towards IPV and abused women, and to investigate their impact on the provision and the quality of OSCC integrated services in Malaysia. | In-depth interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 54 | N/S |
Iverson et al. [25] | 2013 (USA) | Provides an initial qualitative assessment of VHA primary care providers’ perspectives regarding IPV screening practices. | In-depth semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 1 | 10+ |
Shamu et al. [62] | 2013 (Zimbabwe) | Explore perceptions and experiences of nurse midwives working in Zimbabwe’s public maternity services regarding IPV among pregnant women, including possible responses in the clinic setting. | In-depth interviews, focus-group discussion and observation | Midwives | n = 6 | N/S |
Sprague et al. [34] | 2013 (Canada) | Explore perceived barriers to IPV screening in the orthopaedic fracture clinic and by identifying potential facilitators for addressing these barriers among orthopaedic surgeons and surgical trainees (senior and junior orthopaedic residents). | Focus-group discussions | Orthopedic surgeons and strainees (senior and junior orthopedic residents). | n = 20 (mean 10) | 10+ |
Beynon et al. [31] | 2012 (Canada) | Explore physicians’ and nurses’ experiences, both professional and personal, when asking about IPV; determine the variations by discipline; and identify implications for practice, workplace policy and curriculum development. | Open ended survey | Physicians and nurses | n = 769 | N/S |
Efe-Taskin et al. [61] | 2012 (Turkey) | Delineate the factors that prevent the adequate provision of nursing services to women subjected to domestic violence. | In-depth interviews | Nurses | n = 30 | < 5 |
Finnbogadottir et al. [39] | 2012 (Sweden) | Explore midwives’ awareness of and clinical experience regarding domestic violence among pregnant women in southern Sweden. | Focus-group discussions | Midwives | n = 16 | 10+ |
Guruge [59] | 2012 (Sri Lanka) | Explore the research questions: (1) What are nurses’ perceptions of their role in caring for women experiencing IPV in the Sri Lankan context; (2) What are the barriers nurses face in providing appropriate care to women living with IPV in the Sri Lankan context? | Open-ended, unstructured interviews | Nurses | n = 30 | 10+ |
Yeung et al. [38] | 2012 (UK) | Explore the perceptions and experiences of general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses on addressing domestic violence before and after participation in a domestic violence training and support programme. | Semi-structured interviews | Health providers/professionals | n = 17 | > 5 |
Quality of included studies
Author | Statement of aim | Qualitative methodology appropriate | Research design appropriate | Recruitment strategy appropriate | Relationship between researcher & participants adequately considered | Ethical issues taken into consideration | Data analysis sufficiently rigorous | Findings supported by evidence | Other limitations | GRADE-CERQual assessment of quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Al-Natour et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Limited data supporting themes | No or very minor concerns |
Alvarez et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Arboit et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Limited details on recruitment | No or very minor concerns |
Aziz & El-Gazzar | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Low generalisability | No or very minor concerns |
Baig et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Baird et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Bender | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Benyon et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Briones-Vozmediano et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Columbini et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Danitz et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Efe & Taskin | Yes | Yes | Yes | yes | Unclear | Partial | Yes | Yes | No details on ethics and data analysis | Minor concerns. |
Fay-Hillier et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Finnbogadottir & Dykes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Gomez-Fernandez et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Recruitment not clear | Minor concerns. |
Gotlib Conn et al | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Guruge | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Hatcher et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Potential risk of bias | No or very minor concerns |
Henriksen et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Horwood et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Iverson et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Jack et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Kopcavar et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Mauri et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | No limitations acknowledged | No or very minor concerns |
McCall-Hosenfeld et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
McCauley et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Papadakaki et al. | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | There was no means to control for bias | Minor concerns |
Pitter | Yes | yes | Yes | Partial | yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Concerns around sample recruitment, data analysis and discussion | Moderate concerns |
Rahmqvist et al. | Yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Ramachandran et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Unclear | yes | Yes | N/A | Minor concerns |
Shamu et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Limitations not clear | Minor concerns |
Sprague et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Sun et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Partial | Yes | Concern around ethical issue and data collection | Minor concerns |
Sundborg et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Usta et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | Concerns about data collection | Minor concerns |
Van der Wath | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Partial | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or minor concerns |
Visentin et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Wild et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Potential risk of bias | No or very minor concerns |
Williams et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Limited quotes to support evidence | Minor concerns |
Wilson et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | N/A | No or very minor concerns |
Wyatt et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | Yes | Potential risk of bias | No or very minor concerns |
Yeung et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Unclear | Yes | Yes | N/A | Minor concerns |
Zijlstra et al. | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Partial | Yes | Yes | Concerns about ethical approval | Minor concerns |
Key themes
Theme | Studies contributing |
---|---|
The environment works against us - Limited time with patients - Lack of privacy | |
Trying to tackle the problem on my own - Lack of management support - Health system failure to provide adequate training, polices and response protocols and resources | |
Societal beliefs enable us to blame the victim - Normalisation of IPA - Belief that IPA only present in certain types of women - Women will lie or are not reliable |
The environment works against us
Doctors who only have ten minutes to spend with their patients—they can’t ask about intimate partner violence. Even if they did, nobody would open up to them about a personal matter like that in ten minutes [22]. (Nurse, USA)
It’s hard to develop a feeling of trust in a short period of time [34]. (Orthopedic surgeon/trainee, Canada)
For some HCPs, the lack of time was such a problem that it was preferable to discourage disclosures rather than be forced into a position where they could not address them properly. A nurse working in the sexual health setting in the UK commented that:I have more than enough to do without digging too deep. The topic is big and difficult. It is big and difficult and takes time, right?... If somebody discloses things you need to make time to address it [57]. (Midwife, Norway)
HCPs across multiple healthcare settings highlighted lack of privacy as another critical barrier to IPA identification. HCPs pointed out that women often attended appointments with their partner, which made it inappropriate and potentially unsafe to ask about IPA.There are ways to ask the question to get a negative answer if you’re in a hurry [36]. (Sexual health nurse, UK)
Sometimes…I’ll ask [about IPA], just because it’s a legality issue, but a lot of times—for instance, if you’re married and you come to the ER, chances are you and your husband are both coming in the triage room. So [if I] say, “Are you a victim of domestic violence or abuse?” you’re probably not going to answer at that time honestly, if you are [24]. (Emergency department nurse, USA)
Even when women attended alone, the physical environment within many healthcare settings was itself a barrier to sensitive inquiry. Poor design, noise, and constant interruptions made it difficult for HCPs to have sensitive discussions with women about IPA. A midwife working in the Spanish sexual and reproductive healthcare setting, for example, noted that in her clinic:…Sometimes the husband is there too, which makes one wonder what is going to happen to the woman afterwards, will it become worse if I dig into this right now? [39]. (Midwife, Sweden)
Similarly, a study exploring the perspectives of orthopaedic surgeons and trainees in the US fracture clinic setting, described a clear example of these issues:There are 3 doors, plus a telephone that rings all of the time, [but] when a woman is describing a situation like this, then nothing should interrupt her visit [45]. (Midwife, Spain)
In the rural context, HCPs also suggested that a lack of confidentiality was a barrier to IPA identification. They pointed out that because “everybody knows everybody” [22] in a small community, that women experiencing IPA may be reluctant to disclose to a HCP they know socially or to have information recorded on their chart.“There’s six other people, at least six plus learners so probably twelve people listening to every single conversation I have with patients; it’s not the appropriate place”. In addition, many fracture clinics follow an open concept model, with curtains separating exam rooms. One participant made the following analogy: “The fracture clinic is the equivalent of a family doctor seeing patients in their waiting office [34]. (Surgeons, Canada)
Trying to tackle the problem on my own
Further, many HCPs felt that their workplaces and organisations also did not prioritise ongoing education. Participants in a variety of settings and in different countries expressed a desire to receive additional training to improve their confidence in identifying and responding to IPA but suggested that this was neither offered nor encouraged. For example, an emergency department nurse in a Turkish study suggested that:
Similarly, a midwife in a Norwegian study by Henriksen and colleagues [57] expressed frustration that she was being asked to screen patients without being provided with any support or training.You need to be trained for this. I don’t know, something like a course...I haven’t done anything at the moment so I don’t know how adequate I would be [61]. (Nurse, Turkey)
In addition to a lack of training opportunities, HCPs lamented the absence of comprehensive IPA policies and protocols to guide practitioners in identification and response. This led to feelings of uncertainty and confusion. One practitioner from a study by Rahmqvist and colleagues [40] in the Swedish emergency department setting commented that:I feel that this is something we just have to deal with without anyone telling us how to do it. So I think that I feel provoked that they [the organization] have just decided this without training us properly [57]. (Midwife, Norway)
A sexual health nurse in an American study by Ramachandran and colleagues [27] described similar sentiments, suggesting that even when practitioners were trained to ask, there were no policies to guide them in what to do next:I would like to know exactly what to do, with clear routines so that when it comes up, that they have been victimized, I know what to do. How can I help? Where can I refer the patient for follow up care?... sometimes it hasn’t worked out before, so I hesitate to ask or engage because I don’t know what to do or what will happen if I try to refer [40]. (Emergency department nurse, Sweden)
Data from five studies suggested that a further barrier to addressing IPA in health settings was a lack of collaboration amongst the different professions and no sense of working together as a team to address IPA. Many HCPs stated that they thought the responsibility for identifying and responding to IPA ought to sit with a different specialty or profession, either because they felt that the other professions (such as social work) were better equipped or because their own role description actively discouraged screening.We’re trained to ask the questions, we’re trained to make sure, are you feeling safe, blah, blah, blah. But then someone says ‘yes’ and then you’re like, oh no, because now I really have no idea what to do with them… I’ve never had any real sense of, OK, now what’s the appropriate follow-up? And obviously, I know that you need it, but do I tell them they can call a hotline? Are they really going to do that? Do I make them an appointment while I’m in the office with them to speak with someone? It’s really hard to know, what we do now… [27]. (Sexual health nurse, USA)
I think they’re [patients] being screened as they come through the emergency department, so I don’t think that screening them again in the fracture clinic adds anything [32]. (Fracture clinic, Canada)
Not us, I think the doctor is the one who [is] supposed to refer them to the social workers, because we can’t refer patients as nurses. We don’t refer [47]. (Emergency nurse, South Africa)
Lastly, HCPs across multiple healthcare settings highlighted a structural disconnect between healthcare settings and social agencies that support people affected by IPA. HCPs did not feel confident in knowing what referral options were available and how services could help:Screening for IPV is not our role as nurses and it is not written in the job description, so I have no authority for IPV screening, and could be fired if taking the responsibility for doing that [20]. (Nurse, Jordan)
…What would I do if all these people disclosed abuse? Where would I send them for help? Such things can’t work without appropriate mechanisms within the health care system [52]. (Primary care physician, Greece)
In extreme cases, not knowing where to refer individuals encountering IPA for support and feeling cut off from the service sector meant that some HCPs felt it was ‘better not to know’ about IPA. As a family physician in an American study commented:Unfortunately, the referral system is terrible, so I didn't know where to refer her to [47]. (Emergency nurse, South Africa)
If you don’t have the resources... sometimes it makes you reluctant to screen for it. Sometimes you’d rather not know. I mean now all of a sudden they’ve got this woman who is being abused and you can’t do anything and you don’t have the resources to be able to offer her care...that may be a barrier [26]. (Family physician, USA)
Societal attitudes enable blaming women
However, the perception that it is pointless to ask women about IPA was also held by HCPs.In our culture, women are expected to not disclose IPA, and will not tell the truth. They will tolerate and accept violence for the sake of their own and family dignity and reputation [62]. (Nurse, Jordan)
A further perceived barrier to addressing IPA are societal assumptions regarding the types of people affected. HCPs described the belief that IPA is something that happens to ‘other’ people, not their patient cohort:They are afraid they will not be able to escape, that the situation cannot be resolved, that nothing can be done. No one can help, they are powerless and trapped in it. These people probably do not have an alternative: if they could, they would probably put things in order and leave [58].(Doctor, Slovenia)
Domestic violence is not that common in the group of patients I see because I usually see girls from good, educated, well off families...but in lower classes, less educated, less resources, yes I would say there it is a problem [37]. (Doctor, Pakistan)
Well, you can find violence in all parts of society, but I do not feel that our women are among the most deprived people. Thus, it’s not … These are not people who have a lot of issues, neither economic nor other problems [57]. (Midwife, Norway)
A further societal belief that acts as a barrier to IPA identification is that women fabricate or provoke violence. Some HCPs suggested that women are not reliable patients; in particular, those who are intoxicated or mentally ill were highlighted as patients difficult to believe. Additionally, it was suggested that women use allegations of IPA for attention-seeking behaviour:You have people who. . . you know very well, you know who their partners are, you see them in the practice. . . it may not even occur to you that person could be violent, so that’s probably why you may not [ask]—I may not so much for somebody I know well [38]. (General practitioner, UK)
While I understand that there are lots of people out there who are abused and we need to screen them and get them help if they want it, at the same time, when you ask the same questions to everyone, sometimes it just offers an invitation for more attention-seeking behaviors [24]. (Emergency department nurse, USA).