Male Vets Less Likely to Undergo Intimate Partner Violence Screening

Male veterans are less likely than their female counterparts to be referred for follow-up questions when initial screening suggests they may be at risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), a recent large cross-sectional study finds. 

Among 67,379 patients from 131 US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers who screened positive for risk of IPV from October 2022 through September 2023, 17.7% failed to receive a mandated secondary screen to determine whether they were in danger of lethal violence, reported Galina A. Portnoy, PhD, of VA Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale School of Medicine, et al in JAMA Network Open. The rate was higher for men with initial positive screens than women (19.3% vs 12.1%, respectively, adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.42, P < .001).

Overall, women who underwent secondary screening were more likely to be considered in lethal danger from IPV than men (27.9% vs 13.3%, respectively, AOR 2.29, P < .001).

“While women face higher lethality risk, men’s IPV experiences are often overlooked, underscoring the need for consistent and reliable screening practices to identify all high-risk patients and connect them to life-saving services,” Portnoy told Federal Practitioner.

“IPV is one of the strongest predictors of homicide with risk escalating over time and especially high during periods of separation.” 

“IPV among men is often underreported, unrecognized, and inadequately addressed in clinical settings,” Portnoy noted. “Men who experience IPV often face barriers to reporting—stigma, shame, and concerns about not being taken seriously.”

The VA has implemented annual screening of IPV in women of reproductive age using a modified version of the 5-question Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (HITS) tool. HITS asks how often a woman’s partner had screamed, cursed, insulted, or talked down to them; threatened to harm or physically hurt them, or forced or pressured them to “have sexual contact against your will, or when you were unable to say no” in the last year.

If a patient answers yes to any of these questions, clinicians should follow up with a secondary lethality screen with 3 questions:

• Has the IPV behavior increased in frequency/severity in the past 6 months?

• Has your partner ever choked or strangled you? and

• Do you believe your partner may kill you?

The test is considered positive if a patient answers yes to any question. 

The study focused on 67,379 patients out of 1,265,115 at the VA who scored positive on HITS (mean age, 52.3 years; 23% women; 62.9% White; 8.2% Hispanic/Latino). More than two-thirds (69.0%) had a service-connected disability rating > 50%.

Portnoy said there are several possible reasons for the gender disparity in misclassification such as time constraints, discomfort, limited resources, and lack of training. Clinician bias can be a factor, too, “with IPV still widely seen as primarily a women’s issue.”

“We don’t know whether IPV screening tools work the same for men as they do for women,” Portnoy added. “The HITS tool was developed and validated using samples of women who experienced IPV, and research is needed to test whether it performs as effectively in men.”

Bethany L. Backes, PhD, associate professor and lead, Violence Against Women Faculty Cluster, University of Central Florida, Orlando, is familiar with the study findings and said in an interview that discomfort among clinicians is a significant factor in preventing follow-up IPV screening. 

“When you’re asking about this and someone says ‘yes,’ how do you respond? You just go to the next thing, the next question: ‘How many drinks have you had in the last week?’” Backes told Federal Practitioner. “We’ve talked about creating some scripts for our student health clinicians on campus about how to talk to someone when they disclose, how to then engage or provide resources.”

This is especially important because “it’s hard for people to admit that they’re experiencing this, and then when they do and it’s brushed over, they’re less likely to tell someone again,” Backes added.

C. Nadine Wathen, PhD, a professor who studies IPV at Western University in London, is also familiar with the study findings, but critiqued the HITS, calling it a “terrible name.” The tool, she said, asks about very different behaviors–being screamed or cursed, for example, and forced sexual contact,” she explained to Federal Practitioner.

“If you’re a physician and you’re asking a man, ‘Does she scream or curse at you?’ and he says ‘Yeah, she screams all the time,’ a provider might say, ‘I’m not actually thinking that he’s experiencing intimate partner violence,” Wathen said. “He might be experiencing a bad relationship.’”

That could be true, Wathen said. Couples may scream and throw things at each other, and “you probably could benefit with some couples counseling on how to have a better relationship and manage stress and anger in your relationship. But that is different than ‘intimate partner terrorism,’ where there‘s a pattern of control.”

Wathen prefers a screening tool she helped develop called the Composite Abuse Scale, which she considers more sensitive and specific than HITS. It differentiates the types of abuse that people experience, and “it also recognizes that men in relationships with other men can experience those forms of intimate terrorism, and women can also be the perpetrator of those forms.”

Recognizing that VA clinicians may not have a choice of screening tool, Wathen suggested they follow up the question about screaming and cursing question this query: “Does that make you afraid?”

The study was funded by US Department of Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative and the Veterans Health Administration’s Care Management and Social Work Service via the Intimate Partner Violence Center for Implementation, Research, and Evaluation.

Portnoy has no disclosures. One author discloses relationships with the National Council on Family Relations and Military Family Research Institute. Backes and Wathen have no disclosures.