Frontiers in public health · 2026
Preferences for training on mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence among healthcare professionals: a Norwegian cross-sectional study.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Pilskog Veronica Kvalen, Besley John C, Brevik Thea Beate
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Training healthcare professionals to recognize and respond to intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important component of health system responses to violence. However, little research has explored how healthcare professionals prefer such training to be delivered.
OBJECTIVES: This study explored healthcare professionals' preferences for training modalities on mandatory reporting of IPV and the associations between participant characteristics and preferred training modalities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between May and September 2025 (N = 266) among healthcare professionals working in Norway. The questionnaire assessed demographic and professional characteristics, previous training on mandatory reporting of IPV, perceived competence, and preferences for training delivery formats. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and teaching preferences. Logistic regression analyses explore associations between participant characteristics and preferred training modalities.
RESULTS: In-person meetings, courses, and workshops were the most frequently preferred training formats (62%), followed by e-learning (54%) and digital meetings and webinars (44%). Greater perceived time constraints were associated with a stronger preference for digital training formats. Less experienced professionals were more likely to prefer video-based and e-learning formats. Physicians and healthcare workers were less likely to prefer in-person training.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals' preferences for training modalities on mandatory reporting of IPV vary across professional and contextual factors. Flexible and multimodal training strategies may increase participation and engagement in such training.
OBJECTIVES: This study explored healthcare professionals' preferences for training modalities on mandatory reporting of IPV and the associations between participant characteristics and preferred training modalities.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted between May and September 2025 (N = 266) among healthcare professionals working in Norway. The questionnaire assessed demographic and professional characteristics, previous training on mandatory reporting of IPV, perceived competence, and preferences for training delivery formats. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics and teaching preferences. Logistic regression analyses explore associations between participant characteristics and preferred training modalities.
RESULTS: In-person meetings, courses, and workshops were the most frequently preferred training formats (62%), followed by e-learning (54%) and digital meetings and webinars (44%). Greater perceived time constraints were associated with a stronger preference for digital training formats. Less experienced professionals were more likely to prefer video-based and e-learning formats. Physicians and healthcare workers were less likely to prefer in-person training.
CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals' preferences for training modalities on mandatory reporting of IPV vary across professional and contextual factors. Flexible and multimodal training strategies may increase participation and engagement in such training.