Social welfare service and health care providers are in a key position to implement successful domestic violence (DV) interventions. However, it is known that DV intervention and prevention work is often lacking in coordination and continuity. In addition, the limited resources, hectic work pace, and changing practices negatively affect the development of successful ways to prevent and intervene in DV. This qualitative study involving 11 focus groups, composed of social welfare and health care professionals ( n = 51) in a midsized Finnish hospital, examined the challenges and possibilities within DV interventions and the adoption of good practices produced by a DV intervention development project funded by the European Union (EU). The results show that short-term development projects, amid the pressure of limited time and resources, encounter serious challenges when applied to wicked and ignored problems, such as DV. Developing successful violence intervention practices requires a broad understanding of the challenges that rapid development projects present to professionals and social welfare service and health care practices at the organizational level. Hence, the implementation of good practices requires continuity in managerial and organizational support, distribution of information, documentation of DV, awareness raising, education, training, and agreement on basic tasks and responsibilities. Otherwise, the failure to continue development work derails the results of such work, and short project durations lead to unnecessary work and the need to reinvent temporary work practices time and again. Short-term interventions provide inefficient solutions to the problem of DV, and a built-in organizational structure can prevent the misuse of organizational and human resources.

No abstract

Background Family violence (FV) is a prevalent health issue around the world and health care services have an important role in both recognizing and treating the consequences of violence. However, FV experiences among health care professionals themselves have not been investigated much. We also lack specific knowledge on the associations between FV and mental health. Aim The purpose of the study was to investigate the prevalence and effects of FV in a sample of Finnish health care professionals. In addition to analysing direct connections between different types of FV and mental health, the mediating effect of sleep quality was also taken into account. Methods The study followed a cross‐sectional design. The sample comprised 1952 health care professionals from Central Finland, who participated in a survey measuring their health and well‐being. The dependent variables were perceived sleep quality and mental health as measured by depressive symptoms and the mental health continuum short form (MHC‐SF) questionnaire. Data were analysed using cross‐tabulations, anova and structural equation modelling. Results Thirty‐eight per cent of the participants reported experiencing FV. The most common forms of abuse were ‘psychological FV only’ and ‘psychological & physical abuse’. Participants with FV experiences scored significantly worse on depressive symptoms (p < 0.001), MHC‐SF classification (p = 0.008), sleep quality (p = 0.001) and emotional (p < 0.001), social (p < 0.001), and psychological (p = 0.008) well‐being. The mediation analyses indicated that the harmfulness of FV was at least partially explained by impaired sleep quality. Conclusion The results indicate that FV experiences are common among Finnish health care professionals and that they can significantly affect their mental health. FV should thus be taken to account in seeking to promote the occupational well‐being of health care professionals. The results also suggest that the harmfulness of FV might be mediated by sleep quality. This finding prompts the need for further investigation and FV‐related interventions.

The concept of violence includes psychological threat, blame, humiliation and devaluation as well as the actual use of physical force or power, which may result in injury, death, psychological harm or deprivation. Violence is embedded in the social structures of power, inequality, institutions and regimes as well as in the symbolic order (Walby 2012(Walby , 2017Hearn 2013;. It is manifested in human interaction, institutional and affective practices and ideological structures of cultural discourses and representations.Violence not only reflects social conditions, attitudes and conceptions but also involves a wide range of mental processes intertwined with material, bodily and 'carnal ways of being' -affects -as well as emotions and feelings (Liljeström and Paasonen 2010). It arouses emotions, produces sensations and bears several kinds of passions and intensities that are considered mostly negative, such as anger, rage, fear and disgust. In witnesses of violence, it also evokes secondary complex emotions and moral sentiments, such as empathy, compassion and care, although secondary social emotions, such as hate, shame,

No abstract