Abstract
This study examines the risk of intimate partner homicide among adults in pediatric health care settings.
Given the high prevalence and lifelong negative outcomes of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV), the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that pediatricians assess and provide intervention for IPV.1 Clinicians must ensure that methods for IPV screening and intervention maximize safety. Leaving an abusive partner increases the risk for intimate partner homicide (IPH)2; children are also at significant risk for homicide in this context.3 Among patients disclosing IPV at an adult emergency department, 61% were at high risk for IPH; children in the home were associated with increased risk.4 To our knowledge, no studies to date examine risk of IPH among adults in pediatric health care settings.
Methods
Caregivers disclosing IPV at our Midwestern urban children’s hospital (Children’s Mercy, Kansas City, Missouri) are offered referral to an IPV advocate. We analyzed deidentified data provided by our community IPV agency partner for caregivers meeting with an advocate from July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017. Advocate assessment includes the 11-item Maryland Lethality Assessment Program (LAP)5 and 4 additional questions about risk; caregiver responses assist safety planning. Clients are categorized as high risk for lethal IPV if they meet validated LAP scoring parameters (answering yes to any of items 1-3; ≥4 yes answers to items 4-11; Table 1). Basic demographics were provided. We used χ2 and Fisher exact tests for exploratory analysis between subgroups. All P values were from 2-sided tests and results were deemed statistically significant at P < .05. The Children’s Mercy Institutional Review Board determined this study to be exempt from review as non–human participants research owing to the use of deidentified data.
Table 1. Data on the Individual Risk Factors Present.
| Risk Factor | Participants, No. (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Not Answered | |
| Lethality Assessment Program Risk Factors (n = 127)a | |||
| 1. Abuser has used a weapon against partner or threatened partner with a weapon | 54 (42.5) | 66 (52.0) | 7 (5.5) |
| 2. Abuser has threated to kill partner or their children | 66 (52.0) | 55 (43.3) | 6 (4.7) |
| 3. Partner thinks abuser might try to kill them | 76 (59.8) | 34 (26.8) | 17 (13.4) |
| 4. Abuser has a gun or can easily access a gun | 74 (58.3) | 41 (32.3) | 12 (9.4) |
| 5. Abuser has tried to choke partner | 69 (54.3) | 51 (40.2) | 7 (5.5) |
| 6. Abuser is violently or constantly jealous or controls most of their daily activities | 98 (77.2) | 17 (13.4) | 12 (9.4) |
| 7. Partner has left or separated from abuser after living together or being married | 101 (79.5) | 20 (15.7) | 6 (4.7) |
| 8. Abuser is unemployed | 43 (33.9) | 71 (55.9) | 13 (10.2) |
| 9. Abuser has tried to kill himself or herself | 41 (32.3) | 58 (45.7) | 28 (22.0) |
| 10. Partner has a child the abuser knows is not his or hers | 58 (45.7) | 57 (44.9) | 12 (9.4) |
| 11. Abuser follows or spies on partner or leaves threatening messages | 84 (66.1) | 27 (21.3) | 16 (12.6) |
| Additional Risk Factors (n = 138) | |||
| Abuser present at child’s medical visit | 10 (7.2) | 126 (91.3) | 2 (1.4) |
| Partner feels unsafe going home | 56 (40.6) | 74 (53.6) | 8 (5.8) |
| Abuser uses alcohol | 48 (34.8) | 50 (36.2) | 40 (29.0) |
| Abuser uses drugs | 56 (40.6) | 40 (29.0) | 42 (30.4) |
Yes to any of item 1, 2, or 3 indicates high danger. Yes to more than 4 of items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 indicates high danger.
Results
Among the 150 participants, the mean (SD) age was 32.1 (9.5) years and 149 were women. Of the 106 participants who provided information on race, 63 were white (59.4%) and 36 were African American (34.0%); of the 117 participants who provided information on ethnicity, 36 were Hispanic (30.8%). Among the 127 participants completing the LAP, 109 (85.8%) scored as having a high risk of IPH. The most common risk factors reported were separation from the abuser (101 of 127 [79.5%]), the abuser was violently or constantly jealous or controlled most decisions (98 of 127 [77.2%]), and the abuser followed or spied on the participant or left threatening messages (84 of 127 [66.1%]) (Table 1). Approximately half of participants reported their abuser might try to kill them (76 of 127 [59.8%]), has or could easily access a gun (74 of 127 [58.3%]), tried to choke them (69 of 127 [54.3%]), or threatened to kill them or their children (66 of 127 [52.0%]). Risk of IHP as assessed by the LAP was not associated with race, ethnicity, campus, or patient care unit (Table 2).
Table 2. Data on High Risk of IPH by Subgroupa.
| Subgroup | Participants, No./Total No. (%) (n = 127) | P Value |
|---|---|---|
| Total sample | 109 (85.8) | NA |
| Race | ||
| White | 55/91 (60.4) | .05 |
| Nonwhite | 36/91 (39.6) | |
| Ethnicity | ||
| Hispanic | 31/101 (30.7) | .11 |
| Non-Hispanic | 70/101 (69.3) | |
| Patient care area | ||
| ED | 60/121 (49.6) | .33 |
| Non-ED | 61/121 (50.4) | |
| Campus | ||
| Urban tertiary care hospital or clinics | 97/124 (78.2) | >.99 |
| Suburban community hospital or clinics | 13/124 (10.5) | |
| Urban satellite clinics | 14/124 (11.3) |
Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; IPH, intimate partner homicide; NA, not applicable.
Participants with missing data were excluded from analysis.
Discussion
Most individuals completing LAP assessment were determined to be at high risk for IPH. Lethality risk was not associated with demographics, campus location, or patient care unit. Pediatric health care practices should not limit opportunity to identify IPV or provide resources based on patient demographics, location, or type of care provided.
Data were not available on caregivers declining the advocate referral or not disclosing IPV. Owing to data limitations, we cannot report the number of advocate referrals during the study period; previous work found 42% of referrals were accepted.6 It is possible that caregivers accepting advocate referral are at increased risk compared with others who are experiencing IPV. Escalation of abuse is a risk factor for IPH and a motivating factor for seeking help for IPV.2,7
More than half of the participants reported that their abuser had or could easily access a gun, highlighting the importance of legislation to prevent IPV abusers from legally obtaining or maintaining firearms as a means to decrease risk of IPH.
Although limited by lack of pediatric patient data, our findings highlight the significant risk for IPH among these families. Children often experience unintended effects of IPH.3 Pediatric health care settings offer a unique opportunity to provide IPV resources. Parents experiencing IPV may seek health care for their children when they would not see a clinician for their own health care needs. Children are also a motivating factor for seeking help for IPV.7 It is critical that efforts to address IPV in pediatric settings provide opportunities for all families to access IPV resources, as well as optimize safety practices around screening and response to disclosure. Future studies should examine the risk of IPH among more diverse populations and explore use of the LAP to facilitate resource provision and clinical management.
References
- 1.Thackeray JD, Hibbard R, Dowd MD; Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect; Committee on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention . Intimate partner violence: the role of the pediatrician. Pediatrics. 2010;125(5):1094-1100. doi: 10.1542/peds.2010-0451 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(7):1089-1097. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Smith SG, Fowler KA, Niolon PH. Intimate partner homicide and corollary victims in 16 states: National Violent Death Reporting System, 2003-2009. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):461-466. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301582 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Brignone L, Gomez AM. Double jeopardy: predictors of elevated lethality risk among intimate partner violence victims seen in emergency departments. Prev Med. 2017;103:20-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.06.035 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence Development of the Lethality Assessment Program (LAP). https://lethalityassessmentprogramdotorg.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/development-of-the-lap1.pdf. Accessed February 13, 2018.
- 6.Litzau M, Dowd MD, Miller MK, Stallbaumer-Rouyer J, Randell KA. Universal intimate partner violence in the pediatric emergency department and urgent care setting: a retrospective review. Pediatr Emerg Care. In press. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Randell KA, Bledsoe LK, Shroff PL, Pierce MC. Mothers’ motivations for intimate partner violence help-seeking. J Fam Violence. 2012;27(1):55-62. doi: 10.1007/s10896-011-9401-5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
