The Potential for Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Community Pharmacies: An Exploratory Study of Female Consumers’ Perspectives

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a substantial public health problem. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recently updated guidelines to recommend IPV screening for all women of childbearing age. Expansion of screening efforts to the community pharmacy setting could provide an opportunity to substantially impact the health of consumers. To date, no research has explored consumers’ perspective on IPV screening in the community pharmacy environment. To address this gap, a descriptive survey research study was conducted to examine female consumers’ attitudes and preferences for IPV screening in community pharmacies. Female pharmacy customers (N = 60) completed an online survey assessing knowledge of and attitudes about community pharmacies as sources of health care advice, beliefs about IPV and IPV screening, and perspectives on IPV screening in the community pharmacy environment. Consumers who utilized pharmacies with more patient care services were more likely to report interest in IPV screening in the pharmacy environment. The majority of respondents thought IPV screening is an important thing to do (85.0%), and 33.3% agreed that it should happen in a pharmacy. A statistically significant relationship between the belief that the pharmacy is a good place for health education and preference for IPV screening in the community pharmacy environment was found, r(58) = .43, p < .001. Concern regarding the time required to conduct screenings and about the availability of appropriate space were identified as potential barriers to screening in the pharmacy environment.

Keywords

assessment domestic violence disclosure of domestic violence perceptions of domestic violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem of epidemic proportion in the United States, impacting more than 12 million people each year (Black et al., 2011). According to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, 35.6% of women are physically assaulted, sexually assaulted, or stalked by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). Studies in health care settings have identified even higher lifetime prevalence rates, with as high as 50% to 55% of women reporting IPV exposure (Bauer, Rodriguez, Quiroga, & Flores-Ortiz, 2000; Coker, Smith, McKeown, & King, 2000; Duffy, McGrath, Becke, & Linakis, 1999). Rates are high even in privately insured, employed women. A study conducted in a large U.S. health maintenance organization of female members enrolled for three or more years found a 5-year prevalence of 14.7% and 44.0% lifetime prevalence (Thompson et al., 2006).

IPV can negatively impact the health and well-being of the victim by causing injury or worsening health conditions. Victims of IPV experience exacerbation of chronic diseases due to stress and poor health behaviors (Balousek, Plane, & Fleming, 2007; Crofford, 2007; Humphreys & Lee, 2009), report pain more frequently, and use prescription pain medications more than those who are not exposed to IPV (Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara, & Thompson, 2009). Both health care utilization and health care costs are higher for women experiencing IPV, with IPV contributing to an increased use of both primary and emergency care. A study conducted in Victoria, Australia, among women aged 18 to 44 using a burden of disease methodology found that IPV was directly responsible for 7% of the overall burden of disease in this age group. IPV was responsible for more disease burden than elevated blood pressure, tobacco use, and increased body weight (Vos et al., 2006). Women exposed to IPV have health care costs that are approximately 60% higher than women not experiencing abuse (Ulrich et al., 2003). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, IPV costs US$8.3 billion annually when the economic impact was last updated in 2003 (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2003). The harm of IPV extends beyond the immediate victim. For example, children of mothers exposed to IPV have increased health care utilization and costs (Rivara et al., 2007) and are at a greatly increased risk for child abuse (Cannon, Bonomi, Anderson, & Rivara, 2009; Parkinson, Adams, & Emerling, 2001).

Screening for IPV has been proposed as the most effective method to prevent and reduce the impact of IPV in the future (McFarlane, Soeken, & Wiist, 2000). Screening, identifying, and referring women exposed to IPV presents an opportunity to prevent further physical injuries and positively impact both physical and mental health. Routine and regular screenings by skilled health care providers has been shown to significantly increase the identification of IPV (McFarlane, Christoffel, Bateman, Miller, & Bullock, 1991; McFarlane, Parker, Soeken, & Bullock, 1992). Research has shown that women support IPV screening and believe health care providers are the most appropriate persons to ask them about IPV (Zeitler et al., 2006). Importantly, Brendtro and Bowker (1989) reported that surveys of women who have disclosed IPV exposure found that the majority who had successfully escaped the violence had sought help from health professionals. These women reported health care professionals as their number one source of help, even greater than the police and the legal system (Brendtro & Bowker, 1989). This finding is not surprising given that several studies have demonstrated a significant decrease in violence and a significant increase in safety behaviors after screening and referral of individuals identified as IPV exposed (Krasnoff & Moscati, 2002; McFarlane, Groff, O’Brien, & Watson, 2005, 2006; McFarlane, Parker, Soeken, Silva, & Reel, 1998; McFarlane et al., 2000). Although there are significant patient-level concerns (i.e., comfort, safety) regarding IPV screening in the health care environment, women are clearly receptive to screening (Stenson, Saarinen, Heimer, & Sidenvall, 2001). A study by Zeitler and colleagues (2006) found that 95% of women in a women’s health clinic reported that they would not mind a health care provider asking them about exposure to violence. Qualitative studies of women who have escaped abuse indicate that even brief physician conversations can be helpful (Gerbert, Abercrombie, & Caspers, 1999). Caralis and Musialowski found that the majority of abused women (74%) wanted their physician to ask about IPV exposure, and 68% would report IPV if asked (Caralis & Musialowski, 1997).

IPV screening and referral programs were found to be at least as effective as intensive counseling interventions in a review by McFarlane and colleagues (McFarlane et al., 2000). These authors concluded that abuse screening itself may be the most effective intervention (McFarlane et al., 2000). However, it is clear that screening needs to be routine as research has shown that most victims who seek help report being screened multiple times before accessing services (Ambuel, Hamberger, & Lahti, 1996). After a systematic review of the evidence, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated its guidelines in 2013 to recommend IPV screening for all women of childbearing age (Moyer, 2013).

The benefits of screening extend beyond the immediate patient. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommendation states that “intervening on behalf of battered women may be one of the most effective means of preventing child abuse” (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1998, p. 1091). Given that IPV patients see a greater number of health care providers and use health services at a higher rate compared with non-abused women (Bonomi et al., 2009; Koss, Koss, & Woodruff, 1991), universal screening in health care settings has the potential to identify larger numbers of IPV exposed individuals, thereby having a positive impact on children as well. The health care system has recognized the seriousness of IPV and has been actively recommending screening for over two decades. Given the high prevalence and significant health harm associated with IPV, nearly every national health care organization and professional group has called for routine screening of IPV in health care settings (American Academy of Family Practice, 1994; American College of Emergency Physicians, 1995; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 1995; American Medical Association, 1992; American Nurses’ Association, 1992; Institute of Medicine, 2011; Plichta, 2004). Although the guidance and standards of care call for routine IPV screening, and universal IPV screening is widely promoted, most investigations have found that screening is poorly adopted and implemented in practice. Studies have shown that IPV screening rates differ according to the specialty of the provider. For example, the estimated prevalence of screening in primary care and emergency room settings ranges from 1.5% to 30% (Coker, Bethea, Smith, Fadden, & Brandt, 2002; Daugherty & Houry, 2008; McGrath, Hogan, & Peipert, 1998). Women’s health specialists have placed the most emphasis on screening; however, screening by obstetrician gynecologists is only slightly better, ranging from 10% to 39% (Bunn, Higa, Parker, & Kaneshiro, 2009; O’Reilly, Beale, & Gillies, 2010). The low screening implementation rate is likely a result of substantial barriers to screening encountered in daily practice. Reported barriers include attitudinal factors, including fear of offending consumers (Chamberlain & Perham-Hester, 2000) and lack of comfort discussing IPV (Cann, Withnell, Shakespeare, Doll, & Thomas, 2001), and knowledge barriers, such as general lack of training on how to screen (Lapidus et al., 2002) and lack of awareness of appropriate referrals (Garimella, Plichta, Houseman, & Garzon, 2000). System barriers, including lack of time, lack of collegial support, lack of provider continuity, lack of referral resources, and legal concerns have also been identified as challenges (Gerbert, Caspers, Bronstone, Moe, & Abercrombie, 1999; Lapidus et al., 2002; McGrath et al., 1997; Parsons, Zaccaro, Wells, & Stovall, 1995; Rodriguez, McLoughlin, Bauer, Paredes, & Grumbach, 1999; Sugg, Thompson, Thompson, Maiuro, & Rivara, 1999). Due to these challenges research has shown that the majority of health care providers are not following professional recommendations for screening, despite reports of the effectiveness of screening and consumers’ acceptance for the practice (O’Reilly et al., 2010).

Clearly, additional venues for IPV screening warrant further investigation. The USPSTF specifically called for research on additional screening approaches (Moyer, 2013). To date, pharmacists have not been considered as a part of the effort to address IPV. This is an unfortunate deficit as pharmacists are trusted members of the health care team with whom individuals may have the most accessible and frequent contact. Pharmacists are one of the only health care providers available without an appointment. Importantly, pharmacists can be accessed in community settings (i.e., grocery and chain stores). Including community pharmacists in this public health effort could be one of the most effective mechanisms to address this health care challenge. The practice of pharmacy care has evolved to include a significant public health focus (ASHP Council on Pharmacy Practice, 2008; Babb & Babb, 2003; Calis et al., 2004). Pharmacists are now actively engaged in public health initiatives such as the provision of vaccinations (Grabenstein, Guess, Hartzema, Koch, & Konrad, 2001). Pharmacists counsel consumers regarding smoking cessation, diabetes management, and provide other health promotion services (Dent, Harris, & Noonan, 2009; Doucette, Witry, Farris, & McDonough, 2009; Fuller et al., 2007; Mehuys et al., 2011). Consumers have embraced this role for pharmacists and pharmacists have continued to expand public health activities (Hogue, Grabenstein, Foster, & Rothholz, 2003).

Currently, there is no recommendation regarding involvement of pharmacists in care related to IPV. However, community pharmacists are an important part of the health care team and are likely serving women experiencing IPV in their pharmacies. Given that IPV negatively impacts health behaviors, including medication compliance (Lopez, Jones, Villar-Loubet, Arheart, & Weiss, 2010; McFarlane et al., 2010), awareness of and participation in efforts to reduce the impact of IPV provides community pharmacists with an opportunity to positively impact the health and well-being of their consumers. Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in health care screenings and patient education. Just as community pharmacists have participated in other public health initiatives and women’s health programs, they may be an efficient and effective mechanism to widen the net of IPV screening programs.

Previous studies have demonstrated that consumers support universal screening in the health care environment (Robinson & Spilsbury, 2008). However, no research regarding perceptions of IPV screening in the pharmacy environment has been conducted. The present study seeks, for the first time, to explore female consumers’ perspectives regarding IPV screening in the community pharmacy environment, which could assist in determining whether community pharmacies are an appropriate place to conduct IPV screening.

Method

This investigation was a cross-sectional descriptive survey study with a non-randomized sample of female employees of a southeastern U.S. university. The study was restricted to female participants as the IPV screening literature and the IPV screening recommendation only includes females to date. A cross-sectional survey design was utilized. An invitation to participate in the survey was distributed via the university’s daily email digest to all non-student female employees. An opt-in lottery for incentives (gift cards to the campus bookstore and café) was offered to participants. Review and approval by the university’s institutional review board (IRB) were obtained prior to initiation of this study. Participant consent was obtained prior to the collection of any data and participants had the option to withdraw at any point without any penalty. The nature of the study and example questions were included in the consent process. Data security protection measures were employed as required by the IRB.

Data Collection

The survey instrument was developed by the authors. Where possible, items were based on prior surveys. Table 1 includes the domains assessed with example items and the number of survey items for each domain. Items on pharmacy use patterns, perceptions about community pharmacies and pharmacists, and perceptions about IPV, IPV screening generally, and IPV screening specifically in the pharmacy setting were generated for this study. Perception items utilized strongly disagree to strongly agree response choices. Demographic and IPV exposure items from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) surveys were utilized. A free response item was also included to allow participants to share any additional comments about IPV and IPV screening in pharmacies. Following the Dillman tailored design method, the least engaging items (demographics), followed by the sensitive items (IPV exposure), were placed at the end of the questionnaire (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014).

Table 1.

Survey Domains and Example Items.

Domain	Number of Items
Pharmacy use patterns	6
“Do you have a regular pharmacy that you like to go to?”
Perceptions about community pharmacies and pharmacists	9
“I think the pharmacy is a good place for health education.”
Perceptions about IPV screening generally and in the pharmacy setting	10
“I think screening should happen in a pharmacy.”
Demographics	7
Age, race, ethnicity, education, marital status, household income, general health
IPV exposure and screening	5
“Has an intimate partner EVER hit, slapped, pushed, kicked, or otherwise hurt you in any way?”

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

The survey was programmed into Qualtrics (Provo, Utah, USA) online survey software. A link to the survey was included in the invitation to participate posted in the daily email digest. No prompts were sent as the campus-wide university email system does not allow for specific prompts. However, the survey was posted in the daily email to all female employees for 2 weeks, and the email digest is sent each morning. It should be noted that the primary consideration in all research activities related to IPV is safety and respect for all victims. This ethical consideration supersedes any desirable study methodology. As a result, the survey was completely anonymous.

Statistical Analysis

Survey data were coded and transferred from Qualtrics to SPSS, Version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA) for analysis. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and frequency distributions, were computed for the demographic variables and for individual items within the survey. Correlational analyses were conducted to examine associations between items related to knowledge and attitudes about pharmacies and pharmacists and preferences related to IPV screening. A Bonferroni correction was utilized as multiple comparisons were made. Individuals reporting any exposure to IPV were compared with those reporting no exposure on all study variables with t tests and chi-square analyses.

Results

Participants

A total of 64 respondents participated in the study. After a review of the data, four responses were not included in the analyses as they had not completed more than 10% of the survey. A final sample of 60 participants contributed data to the analyses. There are an estimated 1,900 female employees; however, many do not regularly access the daily email digest; therefore, an accurate response rate cannot be calculated. For example, some employees’ work activities do not require regular computer access (i.e., facilities management staff). Although they receive the email each day, they may only access a computer intermittently and may not read the daily email digests. The average completion time for the survey was 7 min 10 s. The mean age of participants was 43.3 years (±11.3 years), with a range of 23 to 67 years. Table 2 reports the race, marital status, income level, self-reported general health status, and IPV exposure for the study participants. Participants reported high levels of general health, with the majority of participants indicating that their health was very good or excellent and no participants reporting poor health. Reported IPV exposure rates were close to those reported in a national survey in the United States (Black et al., 2011).

Table 2.

Participant Characteristics.

Characteristic	%	n
Race
White	86.7	52
Black/African American	11.7	7
Asian	—	0
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander	—	0
American Indian/Alaskan Native	1.7	1
Other	—	—
Hispanic
Yes	1.7	1
No	98.3	59
Do not know/not sure	—	0
Marital status
Married	71.7	43
Divorced	10.0	6
Widowed	0	0
Separated	1.7	1
Never married	16.7	10
A member of an unmarried couple	—	0
Annual household income
<US$19,000	—	0
US$20,000-US$24,999	1.7	1
US$25,000-US$34,999	8.3	5
US$35,000-US$49,999	15.0	9
US$50,000-US$74,999	31.7	19
>US$75,000	40.0	24
Not reported	3.3	2
General health status
Excellent	15.0	9
Very good	45.0	27
Good	36.7	22
Fair	3.3	2
Poor	—	0
IPV exposure
Intimate partner ever threated you with physical violence	20.0	12
Intimate partner ever attempted physical violence against you	18.3	11
Intimate partner ever hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise hurt you	18.3	11

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Pharmacy Use Patterns and Opinions About Community Pharmacies and Pharmacists

The majority of participants had regular exposure to a pharmacy to fill prescriptions. Sixty percent of participants (n = 36) reported that they visit to fill a prescription for themselves or family member at least once per month, with an additional 28.3% (n = 17) reporting that they visit once every few months to fill a prescription. Participants reported using a number of types of pharmacies to fill prescriptions, including chain (40.0%), grocery or general merchandise store (48.3%), and independent pharmacies (33.3%), with a few participants using mail order pharmacies (10.0%). The majority of participants have a single pharmacy that they use to fill these prescriptions, with 68.3% reporting using only one pharmacy. No participants reported using more than two pharmacies to fill prescriptions. This result was further emphasized with 96.7% of participants reporting that they had a regular pharmacy to which they liked to go. Interestingly, although 96.7% (n = 58) of the participants reported that they had a regular pharmacy, they do not necessarily have a regular pharmacist, as only 45% (n = 27) of the participants indicating agreement or strong agreement with the statement “I have a regular pharmacist.”

Few of the participants had experience with advanced pharmacy care services. Only four (6.7%) reported ever receiving counseling from a pharmacist or pharmacy technician about a health behavior. Despite this lack of experience with advanced pharmacy care services, most participants reported that they agree that the pharmacy is a good place for health education and is a good place to be screened for health care problems such as high blood pressure (see Figure 1). Participants apparently prefer to utilize a pharmacy that offers health education and screening programs, with 58.3% indicating some level of agreement with this. Participants reported substantial agreement with the statements that the pharmacy and the pharmacist are good places to go for advice regarding health matters. Overall, participants reported relatively high levels of agreement with the item “I can talk comfortably with a pharmacist” (see Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Opinions about community pharmacy care.

Opinions About IPV and Screening for IPV

Participants reported high levels of agreement that IPV is a serious health threat (91.6% agreed or strongly agreed); however, there was less agreement with the belief that screening for IPV can assist individuals in leaving dangerous relationships, as only 50% of participants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “Asking about domestic violence can help people get out of dangerous relationships.” Although participants indicated high levels of agreement with the idea that screening for IPV is an important activity for health care providers to do, they reported lower levels of agreement with the concept of screening in the pharmacy setting (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Perceptions of screening for intimate partner violence.

Potential barriers to IPV screening examined included access to a comfortable place to conduct IPV screening and the time required to conduct screenings. Participants reported concern about the lack of a comfortable place to conduct screenings in their pharmacies, with 51.7% of responses indicating disagreement or strong disagreement with the statement “My pharmacy has a comfortable place to do screening for IPV.” Although 21.7% agreed or strongly agreed that IPV screening would slow things down too much at the pharmacy, only 10% agreed or strongly agreed that they do not want to use a pharmacy that asks about IPV.

Acceptability of IPV Screening

Given the lack of investigation in this area, it is difficult to determine what factors may or may not influence preferences related to IPV screening in this environment. To examine potential influences on the preference for IPV screening in the community pharmacy, the correlation between items indicating positive or negative preference for IPV screening and other opinions about pharmacies and pharmacists that may be related were calculated. Table 3 reports these correlations. Preference for a pharmacy that offers screening for IPV is highly, positively correlated with beliefs that the pharmacy is a good place for health advice, that the pharmacist is trustworthy, that the pharmacy is a good place for health education and screenings, that IPV is a serious health threat, and that IPV screening can help people get out of dangerous relationships. It may be that those who are aware that pharmacists are trained and/or able to do advance practice activities have more comfort and preference for IPV screening in the pharmacy environment.

Table 3.

Correlation of IPV Screening Preference With Pharmacy Opinions.

	I Think Screening for IPV Should Happen in a Pharmacy	I Would Prefer To Go to a Pharmacy That Offers Screening for IPV
I think the pharmacy is a good place for health education.	.31	.43*
I think the pharmacy is a good place to get health care advice.	.31	.43*
I think the pharmacy is a good place to be screened for health problems.	.25	.37**
I think the pharmacist gives good advice about health matters.	.24	.30
I trust the pharmacist when it comes to health matters.	.25	.34
I would prefer to go to a pharmacy that offers health education and screenings.	.24	.37*
I think IPV is a serious threat to the health of an individual.	.42*	.38*
I believe asking about IPV can help people get out of dangerous relationships.	.38*	.41*

Note. IPV = intimate partner violence.

Statistically significant at the Bonferroni-corrected p value of ≤ .004.

IPV Victims’ Preferences Regarding IPV Screening in the Pharmacy Setting

First and foremost in all research and intervention development related to IPV is the requirement that the intervention not harm the victim. If women who have experienced IPV report significant concern about screening for IPV in the pharmacy setting, intervention development in this setting should be reconsidered. To investigate this issue, a comparison of responses between women who reported exposure to IPV and those who did not was carried out. Individuals reporting any exposure to IPV were compared with those reporting no exposure on all study variables with t tests and chi-square analyses, and no significant differences were found.

Discussion

IPV is a serious public health threat that impacts at least one third of all women in the United States, and the only known health system intervention that has the possibility to reduce and prevent negative health outcomes from IPV is routine screening for IPV exposure (J. McFarlane et al., 2000). Despite guidelines and recommendations from most professional associations of health care providers, implementation of routine screening remains low (Bunn et al., 2009; Coker et al., 2002; Daugherty & Houry, 2008; McGrath et al., 1998; O’Reilly et al., 2010). Alternative screening opportunities in the health care system could address this gap. Pharmacists are trusted, accessible members of the health care team who have not yet been included in IPV screening efforts. Prior research has shown that most victims report being screened multiple times before they sought help (Ambuel et al., 1996). Consumers regularly visit pharmacies to fill prescriptions for themselves and for their families. This routine point of care potentially provides an additional opportunity for screening. Although pharmacists may be trained and interested in conducting screening, understanding the patient’s perspective is critical in developing an IPV screening program in this environment. The community pharmacy environment is unique in that the pharmacist is likely more aware of the impact of offering any particular service on the ability to maintain a patient as a “customer” compared with other medical providers who may be engaged in IPV screening. Zeitler et al. (2006) found that nearly all women would not mind a health care provider asking them about IPV exposure. Whether this acceptance extends to pharmacists is unknown. To our knowledge, the current study provides the first examination of the attitudes of community pharmacy consumers regarding screening.

The results of this convenience sample study of female pharmacy consumers indicated that consumers may not yet be ready for IPV screening in the pharmacy environment. Although participants indicated that they trust pharmacists, responses indicated that they lacked awareness of pharmacists’ training. The results delineated some concerns consumers have, including the lack of appropriate physical space in the pharmacy and the time needed to conduct screenings. This study found neither clear support nor opposition from consumers regarding support for IPV screening in the pharmacy environment; however, it is likely that consumers would need to be educated about the training and capability of pharmacists before IPV screening in the community pharmacy setting would be deemed acceptable. This may be a challenge that is more pronounced in communities with few pharmacies offering advanced pharmacy-based patient care services. If consumers have never experienced advanced pharmacy services, it is unlikely they can judge well the potential benefits and barriers to screening programs in pharmacy settings. Furthermore, only half of the participants who had a regular pharmacy reported having a regular pharmacist. This could indicate that a trusting relationship with an individual provider would be a critical factor in acceptability of IPV screening. These preliminary findings are based on a relatively small, convenience sample. It is important to note that this sample reported a fairly high level of income. Given that health status is correlated with economic well-being, it is possible that a more economically diverse sample may have a different perspective on pharmacy services. Additional investigations in larger samples from diverse communities are needed to provide more clarity regarding these issues from the consumer’s perspective.

There are several limitations to the current study. Participants responded to a survey on what they may consider a sensitive issue. It is possible that their discomfort with this topic impacted their responses. This may have particularly been an issue as the study was conducted at their place of work. Second, this study is limited to individuals’ attitudes and beliefs, but not experiences, with IPV screening in the pharmacy environment. Given the limited exposure to advanced pharmacy practice services reported by this sample, it is possible that the respondents lack the experiences necessary to evaluate and provide feedback regarding screenings in the pharmacy setting. Third, this study utilized a small convenience sample of female consumers from a work environment. These individuals are all working at least part-time, live in the same region, and have access to health insurance. Potential gender and regional differences in attitudes and beliefs regarding IPV, the limited experience of working individuals, differences in community pharmacy practice norms, and other cultural differences may limit the generalizability of the results. Replication in a larger, more diverse sample would be valuable.

In summary, the current study highlights some of the opportunities and challenges of engaging community pharmacists in prevention efforts related to IPV. Expansion of screening efforts to the community pharmacy setting may provide an opportunity to have a substantial impact on the health and well-being of consumers. This investigation is the first study of community pharmacy consumers’ perspectives related to IPV screening in the pharmacy environment. Consumers agreed that IPV screening is important for health care providers to do, but were uncertain as to whether pharmacists specifically should engage in screening. Comments indicated that consumers are unaware that pharmacists are trained in patient communication and counseling, suggesting a need for additional recognition of the skills and capabilities of community pharmacists. In light of high prevalence of IPV, the potential for expanding IPV screening to the community pharmacy environment, at least for targeted patient populations, should be prioritized among future studies of methods to address the public health problem of IPV.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the participants who completed the survey and shared their valuable perspectives on this topic.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Marie Barnard is a research assistant professor in educational research and associate director of the Center for Educational Research & Evaluation at the University of Mississippi. Her primary research efforts focus on intimate partner violence, health, and prevention.

Donna West-Strum is a professor and chair of pharmacy administration and a research professor in the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Mississippi. Her research interests lie in the practice of community pharmacy and improving the quality of medication use.

Erin Holmes is an associate professor of pharmacy administration and a research associate professor in the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Mississippi. Her research interests include community pharmacy workflow management, patient services implementation, pharmacy organizational behavior, human resources management, and quality of work life in pharmacy.

Yi Yang is an associate professor of pharmacy administration and a research associate professor in the Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Mississippi. Her research interests include outcomes research, comparative effectiveness research, medication utilization and adherence, health services utilization and cost analysis, and health care quality indicators.

Amy Fisher received her MSSW from the University of Tennessee and her Juris Doctorate from the University of Mississippi, where she is an assistant professor of social work. Her research interests include student development, cultural competence, race, and interpersonal violence.

References

Ambuel

Hamberger

L. K.

Lahti

(1996). Partner violence: A systematic approach to identification and intervention in outpatient health care. Wisconsin Medical Journal, 95, 292-297.

American Academy of Family Practice. (1994). Family violence. American Family Physician, 50, 1636-1646.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (1998). The role of the pediatrician in recognizing and intervening on behalf of abused women. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. Pediatrics, 101, 1091-1092.

American College of Emergency Physicians. (1995). Emergency medicine and domestic violence. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 25, 442-443.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. (1995). ACOG technical bulletin. Domestic violence. Number 209—August 1995 (replaces no. 124, January 1989). American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 51, 161-170.

American Medical Association. (1992). American Medical Association diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence. Archives of Family Medicine, 1, 39-47.

American Nurses’ Association. (1992). Position statement on physical violence against women. The American Nurse, 24, 8.

ASHP Council on Pharmacy Practice. (2008). ASHP Statement on the role of health-system pharmacists in public health. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65, 462-467.

Babb

V. J.

Babb

(2003). Pharmacist involvement in Healthy People 2010. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 43, 56-60.

10.

Balousek

Plane

M. B.

Fleming

(2007). Prevalence of interpersonal abuse in primary care patients prescribed opioids for chronic pain. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1268-1273.

11.

Bauer

H. M.

Rodriguez

M. A.

Quiroga

S. S.

Flores-Ortiz

Y. G.

(2000). Barriers to health care for abused Latina and Asian immigrant women. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 11, 33-44.

12.

Black

M. C.

Basile

K. C.

Breiding

M. J.

Smith

S. G.

Walters

M. L.

Merrick

M. T.

. . . Stevens

M. R.

(2011). The national intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NSIVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

13.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Rivara

F. P.

Thompson

R. S.

(2009). Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Services Research, 44, 1052-1067.

14.

Brendtro

Bowker

(1989). Battered women: How nurses can help. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 10, 169-180.

15.

Bunn

M. Y.

Higa

N. A.

Parker

W. J.

Kaneshiro

(2009). Domestic violence screening in pregnancy. Hawaii Medical Journal, 68, 240-242.

16.

Calis

K. A.

Hutchison

L. C.

Elliott

M. E.

Ives

T. J.

Zillich

A. J.

Poirier

. . . American College of Clinical Pharmacy. (2004). Healthy people 2010: Challenges, opportunities, and a call to action for America’s pharmacists. Pharmacotherapy, 24, 1241-1294.

17.

Cann

Withnell

Shakespeare

Doll

Thomas

(2001). Domestic violence: A comparative survey of levels of detection, knowledge, and attitudes in healthcare workers. Public Health, 115, 89-95.

18.

Cannon

E. A.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

M. L.

Rivara

F. P.

(2009). The intergenerational transmission of witnessing intimate partner violence. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 163, 706-708.

19.

Caralis

P. V.

Musialowski

(1997). Women’s experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. Southern Medical Journal, 90, 1075-1080.

20.

Chamberlain

Perham-Hester

K. A.

(2000). Physicians’ screening practices for female partner abuse during prenatal visits. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 4, 141-148.

21.

Coker

A. L.

Bethea

Smith

P. H.

Fadden

M. K.

Brandt

H. M.

(2002). Missed opportunities: Intimate partner violence in family practice settings. Preventive Medicine, 34, 445-454.

22.

Coker

A. L.

Smith

P. H.

McKeown

R. E.

King

M. J.

(2000). Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: Physical, sexual, and psychological battering. American Journal of Public Health, 90, 553-559.

23.

Crofford

L. J.

(2007). Violence, stress, and somatic syndromes. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8, 299-313.

24.

Daugherty

J. D.

Houry

D. E.

(2008). Intimate partner violence screening in the emergency department. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 54, 301-305.

25.

Dent

L. A.

Harris

K. J.

Noonan

C. W.

(2009). Randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a pharmacist-delivered program for smoking cessation. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 43, 194-201.

26.

Dillman

D. A.

Smyth

J. D.

Christian

L. M.

(2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

27.

Doucette

W. R.

Witry

M. J.

Farris

K. B.

McDonough

R. P.

(2009). Community pharmacist-provided extended diabetes care. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 43, 882-889.

28.

Duffy

S. J.

McGrath

M. E.

Becke

B. M.

Linakis

J. G.

(1999). Mothers with histories of domestic violence in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics, 103, 1007-1013.

29.

Fuller

C. M.

Galea

Caceres

Blaney

Sisco

Vlahov

(2007). Multilevel community-based intervention to increase access to sterile syringes among injection drug users through pharmacy sales in New York City. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 117-124.

30.

Garimella

Plichta

S. B.

Houseman

Garzon

(2000). Physician beliefs about victims of spouse abuse and about the physician role. Journal of Women’s Health & Gender-Based Medicine, 9, 405-411.

31.

Gerbert

Abercrombie

Caspers

(1999). How health care providers help battered women: The survivors’ perspective. Women’s Health, 29, 115-135.

32.

Gerbert

Caspers

Bronstone

Moe

Abercrombie

(1999). A qualitative analysis of how physicians with expertise in domestic violence approach the identification of victims. Annals of Internal Medicine, 131, 578-584.

33.

Grabenstein

J. D.

Guess

H. A.

Hartzema

A. G.

Koch

G. G.

Konrad

T. R.

(2001). Effect of vaccination by community pharmacists among adult prescription recipients. Medical Care, 39, 340-348.

34.

Hogue

M. D.

Grabenstein

J. D.

Foster

S. L.

Rothholz

M. C.

(2003). Pharmacist involvement with immunizations: A decade of professional advancement. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 46, 168-179.

35.

Humphreys

Lee

K. A.

(2009). Interpersonal violence is associated with depression and chronic physical health problems in midlife women. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 30, 06-213.

36.

Institute of Medicine. (2011). Clinical preventive services for women: Closing the gaps. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

37.

Koss

M. P.

Koss

P. G.

Woodruff

W. J.

(1991). Deleterious effects of criminal victimization on women’s health and medical utilization. Archives of Internal Medicine, 151, 342-347.

38.

Krasnoff

Moscati

(2002). Domestic violence screening and referral can be effective. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40, 485-492.

39.

Lapidus

Cooke

M. B.

Gelven

Sherman

Duncan

Banco

(2002). A statewide survey of domestic violence screening behaviors among pediatricians and family physicians. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 156, 332-336.

40.

Lopez

E. J.

Jones

D. L.

Villar-Loubet

O. M.

Arheart

K. L.

Weiss

S. M.

(2010). Violence, coping, and consistent medication adherence in HIV-positive couples. AIDS Education and Prevention, 22, 61-68.

41.

McFarlane

Christoffel

Bateman

Miller

Bullock

(1991). Assessing for abuse: Self-report versus nurse interview. Public Health Nursing, 8, 245-250.

42.

McFarlane

Groff

J. Y.

O’Brien

J. A.

Watson

(2005). Prevalence of partner violence against 7,443 African American, White, and Hispanic women receiving care at urban public primary care clinics. Public Health Nursing, 22, 98-107.

43.

McFarlane

Groff

J. Y.

O’Brien

J. A.

Watson

(2006). Secondary prevention of intimate partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Research, 55, 52-61.

44.

McFarlane

Soeken

Wiist

(2000). An evaluation of interventions to decrease intimate partner violence to pregnant women. Public Health Nursing, 17, 443-451.

45.

McFarlane

Symes

Frazier

McGlory

Henderson-Everhardus

M. C.

Watson

Liu

(2010). Connecting the dots of heart disease, poor mental health, and abuse to understand gender disparities and promote women’s health: A prospective cohort analysis. Health Care for Women International, 31, 313-326.

46.

McFarlane

Groff

J. Y.

O’Brien

J. A.

Watson

(2005). Prevalence of partner violence against 7,443 African American, White, and Hispanic women receiving care at urban public primary care clinics. Public Health Nursing, 22, 98-107.

47.

McFarlane

Groff

J. Y.

O’Brien

J. A.

Watson

(2006). Secondary prevention of intimate partner violence: A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Research, 55, 52-61.

48.

McGrath

M. E.

Bettacchi

Duffy

S. J.

Peipert

J. F.

Becker

B. M.

St. Angelo

(1997). Violence against women: Provider barriers to intervention in emergency departments. Academy of Emergency Medicine, 4, 297-300.

49.

McGrath

M. E.

Hogan

J. W.

Peipert

J. F.

(1998). A prevalence survey of abuse and screening for abuse in urgent care patients. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 91, 511-514.

50.

Mehuys

Van Bortel

De Bolle

Van Tongelen

Annemans

Remon

J. P.

Giri

(2011). Effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in diabetes care: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 36, 602-613.

51.

Moyer

V. A.

(2013). Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158, 478-486.

52.

National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2003). Costs of intimate partner violence against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

53.

O’Reilly

Beale

Gillies

(2010). Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 11, 190-201.

54.

Parkinson

G. W.

Adams

R. C.

Emerling

F. G.

(2001). Maternal domestic violence screening in an office-based pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 108, E43.

55.

Parsons

L. H.

Zaccaro

Wells

Stovall

T. G.

(1995). Methods of and attitudes toward screening obstetrics and gynecology patients for domestic violence. American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, 173, 381-386.

56.

Plichta

S. B.

(2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 1296-1323.

57.

Rivara

F. P.

Anderson

M. L.

Fishman

Bonomi

A. E.

Reid

R. J.

Carrell

Thompson

R. S.

(2007). Intimate partner violence and health care costs and utilization for children living in the home. Pediatrics, 120, 1270-1277.

58.

Robinson

Spilsbury

(2008). Systematic review of the perceptions and experiences of accessing health services by adult victims of domestic violence. Health & Social Care in the Community, 16, 16-30.

59.

Rodriguez

M. A.

McLoughlin

Bauer

H. M.

Paredes

Grumbach

(1999). Mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence to police: Views of physicians in California. American Journal of Public Health, 89, 575-578.

60.

Stenson

Saarinen

Heimer

Sidenvall

(2001). Women’s attitudes to being asked about exposure to violence. Midwifery, 17, 2-10.

61.

Sugg

N. K.

Thompson

R. S.

Thompson

D. C.

Maiuro

Rivara

F. P.

(1999). Domestic violence and primary care. Attitudes, practices, and beliefs. Archives of Family Medicine, 8, 301-306.

62.

Thompson

R. S.

Bonomi

A. E.

Anderson

Reid

R. J.

Dimer

J. A.

Carrell

Rivara

F. P.

(2006). Intimate partner violence: Prevalence, types, and chronicity in adult women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 30, 447-457.

63.

Ulrich

Y. C.

Cain

K. C.

Sugg

N. K.

Rivara

F. P.

Rubanowice

D. M.

Thompson

R. S.

(2003). Medical care utilization patterns in women with diagnosed domestic violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 24, 9-15.

64.

Vos

Astbury

Piers

L. S.

Magnus

Heenan

Stanley

. . . Webster

(2006). Measuring the impact of intimate partner violence on the health of women in Victoria, Australia. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 4, 739-744.

65.

Zeitler

M. S.

Pain

A. D.

Breitbart

Rickert

V. I.

Olson

Stevens

. . . Davison

L. L.

(2006). Attitudes about intimate partner violence screening among an ethnically diverse sample of young women. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 119.e1-119.e8.