1. Evaluation of new medical school curricula: identifying and treating
male patients for intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration
Vijay Singh MD, MPH
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program and Department of Family Medicine, Medical School
INTRODUCTION
RESULTS
●Recent research has addressed ways to identify and treat male patients who perpetrate IPV. A second-year medical student (M2) lecture delivered in 2008 and 2009 incorporated these findings:
●Male patients are identified as IPV perpetrators using several methods: questionnaires, interviews and physician-coded diagnoses.
●The prevalence of IPV perpetration by male patients in primary care and emergency department settings is 8-41%. Risk factors for IPV perpetration include depression, alcoholism and other substance abuse.
●IPV perpetration is treated through referral to batterer intervention programs (BIP). Though evidence regarding BIP effectiveness is inconclusive, encouraging new approaches are now being tested.
Response rate
●Over the past 2 academic years, 201 of 345 (58%) M2 students gave at least one response to the course evaluation items. In 2009, a range of 76 to 78 out of 176 (43-44%) M2 students gave at least one response to the course evaluation items.
●To test association between gender and responding to questions, a Pearson chi-square value was utilized. The Chi-square value of was not statistically significant (p>0.5), showing no association of gender with responding to a course evaluation question.
Mean score by question and gender
METHODS
●Each M2 in 2008 and 2009 was contacted to complete a voluntary, online evaluation of each IPV lecture.
●In 2008 one question assessed this material: “I valued the identifying and treating male IPV perpetrators lecture.”
●In 2009 four questions assessed this material: “The identifying and treating male IPV perpetrators lecture:
taught me ways to identify male patients who are at-risk for abusing their partner,
taught me current treatment of male perpetrators,
provided me with sufficient information, and
was appropriate for my level of training.”
●Questions were answered using a 5-point Likert scale: Strongly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5).
●Response rate and mean score were determined for each question. Pearson chi-square test assessed associations between gender and responses.
●Student evaluators were able to write in any additional content that would have been helpful in the lecture.
●The mean score for all 4 above evaluation questions in was 3.83, compared to the overall IPV lecture evaluation mean score of 3.61 for
Write-in comments from academic year
“It was the most interesting lecture of them all because it was something that we had never talked about or even discussed.”
“I think we need more of this type of material.”
“The lecture should probably be longer so that we can cover more specifics about identifying and providing treatment for male perpetrators…or even how we should have discussions with male perpetrators who are our patients.”
“This was helpful in seeing another perspective.”
“I support trying to rehabilitate violent male partners…I know there isn’t much time for this important topic, but it’s an important subject and I’m curious to know.”
“A concise page of guidelines…would be useful for future reference.”
CONCLUSIONS
●This study shows quantitative and qualitative support for new curricula on identifying and treating male patients for IPV perpetration. There are no differences between men and women in evaluating such gender-based violence curricula.
●This study is limited by its small sample size and assessment of only knowledge and beliefs around screening for IPV perpetration. Future work should use experimental designs to assess training outcomes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
● Joel Purkiss, Ph.D., University of Michigan Office of Medical Education, Associate Director of Curriculum Evaluation collected and analyzed this data.