Domestic and Family Violence Screening and Response: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Mixed Methods Survey in Private Mental Health Clients.

Caroline A Fisher, Gaylyn Cairns, Sue Jones, Isabella Wilson, Toni D Withiel
{"title":"Domestic and Family Violence Screening and Response: A Prospective, Cross-Sectional, Mixed Methods Survey in Private Mental Health Clients.","authors":"Caroline A Fisher, Gaylyn Cairns, Sue Jones, Isabella Wilson, Toni D Withiel","doi":"10.1111/inm.13410","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Most domestic and family violence (DFV) research has focused on establishing prevalence and screening rates in public health and community samples. This study sought to address a gap in the literature by evaluating DFV screening and response practices in a private mental healthcare inpatient service and determining if clients of the service had unmet DFV needs. A prospective, convenience sample, mixed methods, cross-sectional survey of adult inpatient mental health consumers was employed. Sixty-two participants completed the Royal Melbourne Hospital Patient Family Violence Survey. Quantitative Likert-type and categorical responses were collated and analysed descriptively (count and percentage). Free-text responses were analysed using qualitative description within a content analysis framework. Sixty-five percent of participants had been screened for at least one DFV issue, on at least one occasion, with 35% not being screened, to their recall. Twenty-three percent reported disclosing DFV concerns, 82% felt very supported by the clinician's response to their disclosure, and 86% were provided with information they found helpful. Unmet needs were identified in 13% of participants, who had wanted to disclose DFV concerns but not feel comfortable to do so. No unscreened respondents disclosed DFV concerns, highlighting the need to uphold best practice guidelines for direct enquiry. Most disclosing clients were positive about the support they received. Indicated areas for improvement were screening rates, active follow-up, increasing psychology support levels and safety planning.</p>","PeriodicalId":94051,"journal":{"name":"International journal of mental health nursing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of mental health nursing","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.13410","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most domestic and family violence (DFV) research has focused on establishing prevalence and screening rates in public health and community samples. This study sought to address a gap in the literature by evaluating DFV screening and response practices in a private mental healthcare inpatient service and determining if clients of the service had unmet DFV needs. A prospective, convenience sample, mixed methods, cross-sectional survey of adult inpatient mental health consumers was employed. Sixty-two participants completed the Royal Melbourne Hospital Patient Family Violence Survey. Quantitative Likert-type and categorical responses were collated and analysed descriptively (count and percentage). Free-text responses were analysed using qualitative description within a content analysis framework. Sixty-five percent of participants had been screened for at least one DFV issue, on at least one occasion, with 35% not being screened, to their recall. Twenty-three percent reported disclosing DFV concerns, 82% felt very supported by the clinician's response to their disclosure, and 86% were provided with information they found helpful. Unmet needs were identified in 13% of participants, who had wanted to disclose DFV concerns but not feel comfortable to do so. No unscreened respondents disclosed DFV concerns, highlighting the need to uphold best practice guidelines for direct enquiry. Most disclosing clients were positive about the support they received. Indicated areas for improvement were screening rates, active follow-up, increasing psychology support levels and safety planning.

家庭暴力筛查与应对:一项针对私人心理健康客户的前瞻性、横断面、混合方法调查。
大多数家庭暴力(DFV)研究都侧重于确定公共卫生和社区样本中的流行率和筛查率。本研究试图通过评估一家私立精神保健住院服务机构的家庭暴力筛查和应对措施,以及确定该服务机构的客户是否有未得到满足的家庭暴力需求,来填补文献中的空白。该研究采用了一种前瞻性、方便抽样、混合方法、横断面调查的方法,调查对象为成年住院精神健康消费者。62 名参与者完成了墨尔本皇家医院患者家庭暴力调查。对李克特式定量回答和分类回答进行了整理和描述性分析(计数和百分比)。自由文本回复在内容分析框架内使用定性描述进行分析。65%的参与者至少有一次接受过一次 DFV 筛查,据他们回忆,35% 的参与者没有接受过筛查。23%的人报告披露了对 DFV 的担忧,82%的人对临床医生对其披露的回应感到非常支持,86%的人获得了他们认为有用的信息。有 13% 的受访者的需求未得到满足,他们想披露 DFV 问题,但又觉得不方便披露。没有未经筛查的受访者披露家庭暴力问题,这凸显了坚持直接询问最佳实践指南的必要性。大多数披露问题的受访者对他们获得的支持持肯定态度。需要改进的方面包括筛查率、积极跟进、提高心理支持水平和安全规划。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信