How Does Intimate Partner Violence Differ Depending on Level of Rurality of Residential Area in Spain?

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is recognized as a worldwide public health problem. Most theories ascribe IPV to individual, family, or cultural factors. Authors analyzed different residential areas in Spain in terms of IPV frequency as well as its impact on health and the use of services. A standardized self-administered cross-sectional survey was administered to ever-partnered adult women ages 18 to 70 years receiving care at primary health care centers (N = 10,322). Logistic regression analyzed the association between the level of rurality and health indicators, IPV, and use of services. The lowest frequency of IPV among women is reflected in higher rurality. Women of medium and low rurality presented a poorer self-perceived health and more physical health problems. Women from medium and low rurality areas declared seeking health services more frequently. These results show the importance of the environment in health and indicate the need for research on urban–rural differences in health problems to develop specific public health programs for each country.

Mechanisms that Trigger a Good Health-Care Response to Intimate Partner Violence in Spain. Combining Realist Evaluation and Qualitative Comparative Analysis Approaches

Background. Health care professionals, especially those working in primary health-care services, can play a key role in preventing and responding to intimate partner violence. However, there are huge variations in the way health care professionals and primary health care teams respond to intimate partner violence. In this study we tested a previously developed programme theory on 15 primary health care center teams located in four different Spanish regions: Murcia, C Valenciana, Castilla-León and Cantabria. The aim was to identify the key combinations of contextual factors and mechanisms that trigger a good primary health care center team response to intimate partner violence. Methods. A multiple case-study design was used. Qualitative and quantitative information was collected from each of the 15 centers (cases). In order to handle the large amount of information without losing familiarity with each case, qualitative comparative analysis was undertaken. Conditions (context and mechanisms) and outcomes, were identified and assessed for each of the 15 cases, and solution formulae were calculated using qualitative comparative analysis software. Results. The emerging programme theory highlighted the importance of the combination of each team’s self-efficacy, perceived preparation and women-centredness in generating a good team response to intimate partner violence. The use of the protocol and accumulated experience in primary health care were the most relevant contextual/intervention conditions to trigger a good response. However in order to achieve this, they must be combined with other conditions, such as an enabling team climate, having a champion social worker and having staff with training in intimate partner violence. Conclusions. Interventions to improve primary health care teams’ response to intimate partner violence should focus on strengthening team’s self-efficacy, perceived preparation and the implementation of a woman-centred approach. The use of the protocol combined with a large working experience in primary health care, and other factors such as training, a good team climate, and having a champion social worker on the team, also played a key role. Measures to sustain such interventions and promote these contextual factors should be encouraged.