Public health providers have the opportunity to be part of a strong and resounding community response that recognizes all forms of violence against women as violations of human rights. Among several policies introduced to reverse years of discounting intimate partner violence (IPV) is mandating healthcare professionals to report injuries sustained as a result of IPV. In weighing mandatory reporting (MR) policies many issues come to light such as women's autonomy, confidentiality and safety, resource availability, unintended outcomes, and batterer consequences and punishment. There is a lack of research evidence either supporting or refuting MR policies. Therefore, 7 MR questions were added to an IPV random-digit-dial telephone survey. Support for MR and explanations for position among 427 abused women aged 18 to 50 years across 10 cities was measured. Most (59%) abused women supported MR. Logistic regression analysis revealed 7 significant independent predictors of MR position. Women's resentment of someone else having control over when to call the police was the strongest predictor (ORadj=6.0; 95% CI=3.7, 9.7), predicting nonsupport. Living in a state without a MR law, being latina, unemployed partner, and believing MR would increase a woman's risk of harm also predicted nonsupport. Believing MR would make it easier for women to get help (OR=3.3; CI=1.9, 5.7) and preferring that someone else call the police (OR=2.4; CI=1.5, 3.9) predicted support. While the majority of abused women surveyed in our study support MR, a significant proportion felt that MR would deter women from revealing abuse.
Learning Objectives: See session objectives
Keywords: Domestic Violence, Legislative
Presenting author's disclosure statement:
Organization/institution whose products or services will be discussed: None
I do not have any significant financial interest/arrangement or affiliation with any organization/institution whose products or services are being discussed in this session.