Development of an Innovative Treatment Paradigm for Intimate Partner Violence Victims With Depression and Pain Using Community-Based Participatory Research

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health issue with complex physical health, mental health and social consequences that can exacerbate survivors' barriers to health care engagement and support. Furthermore, health care professionals are often unaware of or feel ill-equipped to address survivors' complex needs. Depression and chronic pain are particularly prevalent co-occurring problems for survivors and can impede engagement and outcomes in traditional health care. This study's purpose was to understand what interventions might be more responsive to survivors' myriad needs, particularlly those with depression and pain. Survivors were involved with the design, execution, analysis, and interpretation of results, based on community-based participatory research principles. Intervention development happened in two phases: the first consisted of focus groups with survivors to inform the intervention and the second included intervention design, informed by a community advisory board (CAB). Thirty-one survivors participated in Phase 1, and they reported preferring a range of support including formal help-seeking, informal coping strategies, and spirituality. In Phase 2, the CAB (comprised of survivors, health care professionals, and researchers) identified three distinct aspects of a comprehensive IPV intervention: (a) education regarding both the complex health issues and available local resources; (b) an integrated consultation service for providers to seek recommendations for responding to the full spectrum of survivors' needs; and (c) a trauma-informed, accessible clinic. Academic medical centers could not have designed this intervention in isolation; survivors and providers played an integral part of this process, and continue to inform our current work.

Addressing the Needs of Abused Chinese Women Through a Community‐Based Participatory Approach

“…As a result, the program was tailor made and able to meet the needs of the abused Chinese women. This study also bore some resemblance to an earlier study in which the CBPA was used for abused women in the United States (Poleshuck et al, 2018). The proposed intervention sought to address the women’s needs, as the concept of “Women‐centred, we are with you” program came entirely from the abused women, who were the stakeholders.…”

“…Even with some input from the women themselves, it would be difficult to address the specific needs of abused women because the ideas did not come from those actually using the services. Also, a single intervention cannot fully address the needs of women with different backgrounds and histories of abuse; instead, a more comprehensive and tailored intervention needed to be developed for IPV survivors (Poleshuck et al, 2018).…”

Developing interventions to improve health: a systematic mapping review of international practice between 2015 and 2016

“…Others consulted one or more groups of stakeholders episodically during the development of the intervention. Poleshuck et al [50] did both. They convened an executive committee of researchers, representatives of the target population, and service providers to guide and oversee the intervention development endeavour throughout the process.…”

“…The decision to develop an intervention for a particular setting was usually described in the introduction section of articles. This decision was based on the following: the location of the target population, for example, an intervention targeting recently incarcerated individuals with HIV was set in prisons and community-based HIV services [41]; the preferences of the target population, for example, Poleshuck et al [50] used a participatory approach in which the members of the target population identified an existing women's health clinic as the setting for their intervention to improve the health of survivors of intimate partner violence; a gap in the evidence base, for example, a lack of weight management programmes delivered solely by GPs in primary care in Australia [10]; or the interests and expertise of the research team, for example, Ingholt et al [49] had previously completed a fieldwork in vocational schools in Denmark. In some cases, the setting was a critical factor in identifying potential interventions.…”

“…Stakeholders were people with interest, influence, expertise, or other concern in the intervention, health problem, target population, or setting. The examples included health and social care providers [55], academics [54], representatives of third sector organisations [32], members of the target population [25], policymakers [50], and advocates and gatekeepers to the target population [56]. Decisions reported about stakeholder involvement included who to include, the duration of involvement, and the nature and purpose of the involvement.…”