I ntimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as "any behavior within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship." 1 Its role as a major public health issue affecting both men and women, regardless of social class, sexual orientation, or racial/ethnic group, was reinforced by the recently released population-based 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. 2 Results indicate that women have a lifetime IPV prevalence rate of 29%, with 1 in 7 injured by an intimate partner. With a lifetime prevalence rate of 10% (1 in 25 injured as a result of IPV), 2 men are significantly less likely than women to experience physical or sexual IPV. 3 While less is known about the long-term impact of IPV among male victims, both male and female victims of IPV experience high rates of adverse physical, social, emotional, and mental health outcomes. [2][3][4][5] Being a victim of IPV is strongly associated with a host of behavioral risks such as sexually transmitted diseases, human immunodeficiency virus infection, and the use of tobacco, alcohol, and drugs and is linked to all other forms of violence. 1 As a significant contributor to health, social, and economic disparities, IPV jeopardizes the fabric of families and transcends all levels of socioeconomic status. Due to high rates of health care utilization by both victims and perpetrators of IPV, 6,7 health care settings have abundant opportunities for early identification, intervention, and secondary prevention of IPV-but have consistently failed in these endeavors.What We Know A recent report, Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps, that was published through the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommends that IPV screening become part of routine preventive services for women. 8 The IOM report is the latest in almost 20 years of similar clinical recommendations and guidelines targeted at improving IPV screening and response in health care settings. In 1992, the American Medical Association recommended screening all women for IPV, 9 and other professional medical organizations widely endorsed these recommendations. 10-13 However, the professional practice guidelines preceded both the evidence of effectiveness and the considerable implementation challenges. Studies that tried to assess the effectiveness of IPV screening quickly found that physicians were unable or unwilling to integrate IPV screening into their practice. 14 Substantial barriers were identified that span the spectrum of physicians' knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. [15][16][17][18][19][20] Even system-level interventions with extensive physician education demonstrated marked improvements in screening without an increase in IPV identification. 21 During this time, the movement for the use of evidence to guide clinical practice was also developing. With the realization that many of our current treatment recommendations lacked high-quality evidence of effectiveness, the level of enthusiasm for IPV screening began to ...