(PS8-83) Intimate Partner Violence: A Survey of Mental Health Providers’ Perceptions and Experiences

Distress within an intimate partner relationship is commonly encountered by a mental health provider in a clinical setting. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is defined as abuse or aggression in a close relationship. IPV includes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression. Mental health providers (including providers that specialize working with couples) rarely receive formalized training to conduct a comprehensive assessment to detect the presence and severity of IPV, and to provide effective treatment for individuals impacted by IPV. This lack of formalized training may lead providers to rely on problematic practices (e.g., encouraging an individual to leave the abusive relationship). Few studies have assessed mental health providers' attitudes and experiences when assessing and treating IPV.

Survivors frequently report the presence of non-physical aggression which can range from critical and harsh remarks to manipulative behaviors with excruciatingly painful consequences. In fact, some research indicates that the non-physical aggression is perceived as more threatening and disturbing by survivors of intimate partner violence. However, guidelines to detect, assess, and treat psychological abuse are sparse. Psychological abuse, a subtype of intimate partner violence, has historically been neglected in both research and practice in the field of mental health. Due to the lack of consensus about what constitutes psychological abuse, providers frequently rely on their own clinical judgment, beliefs, and personal/professional experiences to guide the inquiry and subsequent treatment. This study aimed to assess mental health providers’ knowledge, attitudes, and experiences with assessment and intervention related to intimate partner violence.

For this study, survey items were generated from a review of the literature on gaps between research and practice in the field of IPV. The survey contained questions about demographics, professional background, and attitudes and practices related to IPV assessment and intervention. The survey included a brief description of a hypothetical scenario. Half the participants were presented with a scenario that presents a client as a victim of IPV. The other half were presented with the same scenario but also included a brief description of this client engaging in aggression. These two descriptions were meant to assess the role of bidirectional vs. unidirectional IPV in the assessment and treatment decisions made by mental health providers. The results of the survey were analyzed statistically in terms of percentage of responses to items on the survey and descriptive and inferential statistics were performed on important demographic and professional items. The comments of participants were coded for qualitative analysis.

Identifying and addressing the barriers that prevent mental health providers from using existing research and literature pertaining to IPV should help bridge the gap between basic research and practice to improve quality of care. This research study has implications for improving the assessment and treatment of IPV by focusing on strategies for increasing mental health providers' use of latest advances in research and literature.