Evaluating the Relationship Between Intimate Partner Violence-Related Training and Mental Health Professionals’ Assessment of Relationship Problems

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health problem associated with increased risk of developing mental health conditions. Assessment of IPV in mental health settings is important for appropriate treatment planning and referral; however, lack of training in how to identify and respond to IPV presents a significant barrier to assessment. To address this issue, the World Health Organization (WHO) advanced a series of evidence-based recommendations for IPV-related training programs. This study examines the relationship between mental health professionals’ experiences of IPV-related training, including the degree to which their training resembles WHO training recommendations, and their accuracy in correctly identifying relationship problems. Participants were psychologists and psychiatrists ( N = 321) from 24 countries who agreed to participate in an online survey in French, Japanese, or Spanish. They responded to questions regarding their IPV-related training (i.e., components and hours of training) and rated the presence or absence of clinically significant relationship problems and maltreatment (RPM) and mental disorders across four case vignettes. Participants who received IPV-related training, and whose training was more recent and more closely resembled WHO training recommendations, were more likely than those without training to accurately identify RPM when it was present. Clinicians regardless of IPV-related training were equally likely to misclassify normative couple issues as clinically significant RPM. Findings suggest that IPV-related training assists clinicians in making more accurate assessments of patients presenting with clinically significant relationship problems, including IPV. These data inform recommendations for IPV-related training programs and suggest that training should be repeated, multicomponent, and include experiential training exercises, and guidelines for distinguishing normative relationship problems from clinically significant RPM.

“The Average Counsellor Wouldn’t Know”: Exploring How General Health Practitioners Understand and Respond to Domestic Violence

“…Addressing such concerns, for example, might involve training that introduces practitioners to equity-oriented and trauma- and violence-informed care. Such a change is reflective of the prioritization of IPV at a system-level such that even the dissemination of knowledge to providers extends beyond individual risk factors and appreciates that violence is strongly related to health inequity, social determinants of health, and social justice ( Ford-Gilboe et al, 2018 ; Varcoe et al, 2014 ). Overall, improving the IPV response in general service provision will require a broadening of the lens beyond that of the individual practitioner and towards the system at large.…”

“…Most participants were unable to provide any description of well-defined institutional or organizational guidelines governing their response to IPV. This is critical as general service providers, including nurses and mental health clinicians, have elsewhere recognized formal training and standardized procedures as key facilitators to improved IPV practices (Beynon et al, 2012;Burns et al, 2021;Leppakoski et al, 2014;Olive, 2007). In lieu of protocols and training, interviews revealed an overreliance on experience in the field; participants endorsed acquiring IPV knowledge primarily by learning on the job and depending on experienced clinicians to direct IPV follow-up.…”