Child abuse & neglect · 2024
Acceptability and feasibility of trauma- and violence-informed care for intimate partner violence.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tiyyagura Gunjan, Leventhal John M, Schaeffer Paula, Gawel Marcie, Crawley Destanee, Frechette Ashley, Reames Sakina, Carlson Cindy, Sullivan Tami, Asnes Andrea
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and child physical abuse frequently co-occur, yet IPV-exposed children are not routinely evaluated for abuse. Furthermore, IPV survivors often seek care for their children but not for themselves, making pediatric visits an opportunity to address IPV. We developed a trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC)-based model that 1) evaluated IPV-exposed children and 2) linked survivor-caregivers to an IPV advocate. We aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the model.
PARTICIPANTS: Children < 3 who were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) for exposure to IPV and their survivor-caregiver.
METHODS: To examine feasibility, we calculated the percentage of 1) eligible children evaluated and 2) caregivers who met with an IPV advocate during the child's visit and followed up with the advocate. To assess acceptability, we conducted qualitative interviews with 30/41 caregivers about their perceptions of the model.
RESULTS: From 7/1/20-6/30/22, 49 (22.7 %) of 216 eligible children were evaluated. Of 41 caregivers, six already were receiving IPV services; Of the remaining 35, 24 (68.6 %) met with an IPV advocate, and 22 (91.7 %) had ≥1 follow-up visit with an advocate. We identified three themes: 1) Motivations for the visit, 2) Engagement with the model, and 3) Benefits. Caregivers attended the visit due to behavioral concerns about the child and a desire to comply with CPS. Engagement occurred as medical providers established rapport and provided support without judgment. Benefits included recognizing the impact of IPV on the child and immediate linkage to advocacy services.
CONCLUSION: A TVIC-based model is feasible and acceptable and could improve caregivers' engagement with the evaluation of IPV-exposed children for abuse and with IPV services, which have the potential to improve safety and promote well-being.
PARTICIPANTS: Children < 3 who were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS) for exposure to IPV and their survivor-caregiver.
METHODS: To examine feasibility, we calculated the percentage of 1) eligible children evaluated and 2) caregivers who met with an IPV advocate during the child's visit and followed up with the advocate. To assess acceptability, we conducted qualitative interviews with 30/41 caregivers about their perceptions of the model.
RESULTS: From 7/1/20-6/30/22, 49 (22.7 %) of 216 eligible children were evaluated. Of 41 caregivers, six already were receiving IPV services; Of the remaining 35, 24 (68.6 %) met with an IPV advocate, and 22 (91.7 %) had ≥1 follow-up visit with an advocate. We identified three themes: 1) Motivations for the visit, 2) Engagement with the model, and 3) Benefits. Caregivers attended the visit due to behavioral concerns about the child and a desire to comply with CPS. Engagement occurred as medical providers established rapport and provided support without judgment. Benefits included recognizing the impact of IPV on the child and immediate linkage to advocacy services.
CONCLUSION: A TVIC-based model is feasible and acceptable and could improve caregivers' engagement with the evaluation of IPV-exposed children for abuse and with IPV services, which have the potential to improve safety and promote well-being.