How Can Healthcare Settings be Used to Identify Male Intimate Partner Victimization and Perpetration?: Perspectives from a Nationally Representative Sample of Young Men

Background and purpose: Health care settings hold potential for intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention and intervention, yet providers rarely ask male patients about IPV victimization or perpetration. Increased screening, treatment and referrals for male patients may present an important opportunity to reduce violence and associated adverse health outcomes. This national study assessed men’s perspectives on being asked by a healthcare provider about IPV.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 2,889 men aged 18–35 using the KnowledgePanel (GfK Custom Research North America), a nationally representative sample of the adult U.S. population. Applying the inclusion criterion of “having ever been in a romantic relationship” yielded an analysis sample of N = 916. The survey assessed sociodemographic information and whether participants had committed or experienced acts of physical force; if a health professional had ever asked if they hurt or frightened, or had been hurt or frightened by, a partner; if they believed health professionals should ask all their patients about whether they have hurt or frightened, or been hurt or frightened by, a partner. Using Stata v.15.1 (StataCorp, 2017), we calculated descriptive statistics and conducted multivariate logistic regression to assess characteristics associated with beliefs about and experiences with being asked a screening question for IPV by a healthcare provider. For each measure we created nationally representative estimates by applying survey weights that accounted for the sampling design and nonresponse and were weighted based on the Current Population Survey.

Results: The vast majority of men believed healthcare providers should screen all patients for IPV perpetration (89.5%) and victimization (92.1%), but only a minority of men had ever been asked about IPV perpetration (11%) or victimization (13%). Men who had used physical force were less likely to believe that healthcare providers should screen patients for IPV perpetration or victimization, but more likely to report being asked about whether they had hurt or frightened their partner. Men who had been recipients of physical force by their partners were more likely to believe that providers should ask patients about victimization.

Conclusions and Implications: We found that of young men in the U.S., 19.2% reported use of physical force against a partner and 27% reported that they were recipients of physical force, but only 11% had been screened by a healthcare provider for IPV perpetration and 13% for IPV victimization. This gap demonstrates missed opportunities for IPV identification. Approximately 9 in 10 men believed they should be asked about IPV, and this support can lessen provider-related barriers to identification. We measured only self-reported physical IPV, not psychological or sexual IPV, and did not examine the context of these acts. Despite these limitations, our findings suggest men highly support healthcare provider identification of IPV perpetration and victimization, and yet both are infrequently assessed. Given the association of IPV with numerous negative health and social outcomes, providers should prioritize identification of IPV perpetration and victimization among male patients and development of effective responses.