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.

Validación de la versión española del cuestionario Physician Readiness To Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (PREMIS)

Fundamentos: El Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (PREMIS) es uno de los cuestionarios más completos en el contexto internacional para la valoración de la capacidad de respuesta frente a la violencia del compañero íntimo por los profesionales de Atención Primaria de Salud. El objetivo de este estudio fue determinar la fiabilidad, consistencia interna y validez de constructo de la versión española de este cuestionario. Métodos: Tras la traducción, retrotraducción y valoración de la validez de contenido del cuestionario, se distribuyeron en una muestra de 200 profesionales de medicina y enfermería de 15 centros de atención primaria de 4 Comunidades Autónomas en 2013 (Comunidad Valenciana, Castilla León, Murcia y Cantabria). Se calcularon los coeficientes alfa de Cronbach, los de correlación intraclase y rho de Spearman (test-retest). Resultados: la versión española del PREMIS incluyó 64 ítems. El coeficiente α de Cronbach fue superior a 0,7 o muy cercano a ese valor en la mayoría de los índices. Se obtuvo un coeficiente de correlación intraclase de 0,87 y un coeficiente de Spearman de 0,67 que muestran una fiabilidad alta. Todas las correlaciones observadas para la escala de opiniones, la única tratada como estructura factorial en el cuestionario PREMIS, fueron superiores a 0,30. Conclusiones: el PREMIS en español obtuvo una buena validez interna, alta fiabilidad y capacidad predictiva de las prácticas auto-referidas por médicos(as) y enfermeros(as) frente a casos de violencia del compañero íntimo en centros de atención primaria.

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.

Using realist evaluation to assess primary healthcare teams’ responses to intimate partner violence in Spain

Objective: Few evaluations have assessed the factors triggering an adequate health care response to intimate partner violence. This article aimed to: 1) describe a realist evaluation carried out in Spain to ascertain why, how and under what circumstances primary health care teams respond to intimate partner violence, and 2) discuss the strengths and challenges of its application. Methods: We carried out a series of case studies in four steps. First, we developed an initial programme theory (PT1), based on interviews with managers. Second, we refined PT1 into PT2 by testing it in a primary healthcare team that was actively responding to violence. Third, we tested the refined PT2 by incorporating three other cases located in the same region. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected and thick descriptions were produced and analysed using a retroduction approach. Fourth, we analysed a total of 15 cases, and identified combinations of contextual factors and mechanisms that triggered an adequate response to violence by using qualitative comparative analysis. Results: There were several key mechanisms —the teams’ self-efficacy, perceived preparation, women-centred care—, and contextual factors —an enabling team environment and managerial style, the presence of motivated professionals, the use of the protocol and accumulated experience in primary health care—that should be considered to develop adequate primary health-care responses to violence. Conclusion: The full application of this realist evaluation was demanding, but also well suited to explore a complex intervention reflecting the situation in natural settings.