Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of violence worldwide. Most victims of IPV are women—globally, an estimated 27% of women aged 15 years or older have experienced physical or sexual IPV—but high rates of IPV are also experienced by other marginalised groups. Exposure to IPV increases the likelihood of developing a range of mental health problems. The presence of mental health problems also makes individuals more vulnerable to experiencing IPV. Although IPV is endemic, it is not inevitable. Targets for intervention range from parenting or school-based programmes, to the prevention and treatment of substance misuse, and support for secondary or higher education for women. Survivors should be fundamental to the development and assessment of IPV measures and integrated support services.
In this issue, a Commission on intimate partner violence and mental health, led by Sian Oram, Helen Fisher, and Louise Howard, summarises current knowledge on this crucial topic and lays out a roadmap of recommendations to reduce incidence and aid survivors. The Commission’s approach and findings reach much further than simple clinical pathologising—it takes a broad, whole-society view of intimate partner violence and what should be done to improve the lives of survivors. A key element linking the different sections of the Commission is the concept of trauma and the need for trauma-informed care from individual providers all the way through whole mental health systems. As Oram and colleagues note, there is still much to be learned about trauma as it relates to intimate partner violence, and even more to be done to transform our systems to deal with trauma adequately. Although the focus of the Commission is on intimate partner violence, it provides important insights for dealing with individual traumas and the collective trauma whole communities are experiencing in the aftermath of COVID-19, wars and mass civilian displacement, and the increasing toll of climate change. Below, we highlight a few of the challenges raised in the Commission, and recommendations for improvement, as they relate to the broader topic of trauma.
Current measures of intimate partner violence and its mental health ramifications are inadequate. The Commission highlights how the variety of tools available to measure exposure to intimate partner violence (and the resulting heterogeneity of data), combined with mixed evidence on these tools’ validity and usefulness in different cultural and other contexts, have probably contributed to the paucity of measurement of exposure in clinical and research settings. Oram and colleagues delve into the further challenges of capturing the mental health consequences of intimate partner violence. A key point is the disconnect between what researchers actually measure, and what survivors say is important to them. These issues all have strong overlap with problems more generally with trauma, whereby researchers and clinicians often struggle to account for important nuances in exposure context and cultural settings, and to capture outcomes that matter to survivors.
Like other forms of trauma, exposure to intimate partner violence can be dynamic and cumulative, and a survivor’s response and mental health status will depend on their personal history and life stage. The authors of the Commission rightly advocate a life-course approach to understanding intimate partner violence and making recommendations for interventions. The key messages provide crucial insights for any mental health provider who is likely to encounter trauma in their patients at different life periods, from perinatal to older age.
Given these complexities, the Commission recommends a transformation of our mental health care systems into ones that are centred on, and are capable of properly dealing with, the trauma experienced by survivors of intimate partner violence. In reading the experiences of service users quoted in the Commission, as well as concrete steps proposed by the authors, it is clear that such a transformation of mental health services would probably benefit not only survivors of intimate partner violence, but also survivors of the many other forms of trauma that continue to go unnoticed and untreated in our communities and inpatient and outpatient services. Rather than a siloed mental health system that largely relies on strict categories and diagnoses, the authors recommend a more transdiagnostic approach with respect to trauma, providing specific examples, such as asking “Have I considered how experiencing trauma and violence might have contributed to the development of the presenting complaint or reason for referral?”
The Commission makes clear that there are many ways the mental health community can reduce the incidence of intimate partner violence, but also that the community needs to be better prepared to help survivors. Tackling intimate partner violence will require putting trauma front and centre—in our research, in our services, and in our policies. Doing so will be challenging, but as Oram and colleagues point out, there are principles to guide trauma-informed care and implementation. We hope our readers will see the potential these efforts have to benefit survivors of intimate partner violence and the lives of all those experiencing trauma.
The Lancet Psychiatry
Published: May 13, 2022
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of violence worldwide. Most victims of IPV are women—globally, an estimated 27% of women aged 15 years or older have experienced physical or sexual IPV—but high rates of IPV are also experienced by other marginalised groups. Exposure to IPV increases the likelihood of developing a range of mental health problems. The presence of mental health problems also makes individuals more vulnerable to experiencing IPV. Although IPV is endemic, it is not inevitable. Targets for intervention range from parenting or school-based programmes, to the prevention and treatment of substance misuse, and support for secondary or higher education for women. Survivors should be fundamental to the development and assessment of IPV measures and integrated support services.
Source: Lancet