Infusing Technology Into Perinatal Home Visitation in the United States for Women Experiencing Intimate Partner Violence: Exploring the Interpretive Flexibility of an mHealth Intervention

Loraine J Bacchus, Linda Bullock, Phyllis Sharps, Camille Burnett, Donna L Schminkey, Ana Maria Buller, Jacquelyn Campbell, Loraine J Bacchus, Linda Bullock, Phyllis Sharps, Camille Burnett, Donna L Schminkey, Ana Maria Buller, Jacquelyn Campbell

Abstract

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common during pregnancy and the postpartum. Perinatal home visitation provides favorable conditions in which to identify and support women affected by IPV. However, the use of mHealth for delivering IPV interventions in perinatal home visiting has not been explored.

Objective: Our objective was to conduct a nested qualitative interpretive study to explore perinatal home visitors' and women's perceptions and experiences of the Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation Program (DOVE) using mHealth technology (ie, a computer tablet) or a home visitor-administered, paper-based method.

Methods: We used purposive sampling, using maximum variation, to select women enrolled in a US-based randomized controlled trial of the DOVE intervention for semistructured interviews. Selection criteria were discussed with the trial research team and 32 women were invited to participate. We invited 45 home visitors at the 8 study sites to participate in an interview, along with the 2 DOVE program designers. Nonparticipant observations of home visits with trial participants who chose not to participate in semistructured interviews were undertaken.

Results: We conducted 51 interviews with 26 women, 23 home visiting staff at rural and urban sites, and the 2 DOVE program designers. We conducted 4 nonparticipant observations. Among 18 IPV-positive women, 7 used the computer tablet and 11 used the home visitor method. Among 8 IPV-negative women, 7 used the home visitor method. The computer tablet was viewed as a safe and confidential way for abused women to disclose their experiences without fear of being judged. The meanings that the DOVE technology held for home visitors and women led to its construction as either an impersonal artifact that was an impediment to discussion of IPV or a conduit through which interpersonal connection could be deepened, thereby facilitating discussion about IPV. Women's and home visitors' comfort with either method of screening was positively influenced by factors such as having established trust and rapport, as well as good interpersonal communication. The technology helped reduce the anticipated stigma associated with disclosing abuse. The didactic intervention video was a limiting feature, as the content could not be tailored to accommodate the fluidity of women's circumstances.

Conclusions: Users and developers of technology-based IPV interventions need to consider the context in which they are being embedded and the importance of the patient-provider relationship in promoting behavior change in order to realize the full benefits. An mHealth approach can and should be used as a tool for initiating discussion about IPV, assisting women in enhancing their safety and exploring help-seeking options. However, training for home visitors is required to ensure that a computer tablet is used to complement and enhance the therapeutic relationship.

Clinicaltrial: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01688427; https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT01688427 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6limSWdZP).

Keywords: home visitation; interpretive flexibility; intervention; intimate partner violence; mhealth; nurses; screening; technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

©Loraine J Bacchus, Linda Bullock, Phyllis Sharps, Camille Burnett, Donna L Schminkey, Ana Maria Buller, Jacquelyn Campbell. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 17.11.2016.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation Program (DOVE) screenshot of one item from the Women's Experience with Battering scale. Image credit: University of Virginia, School of Nursing 2016.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation Program (DOVE) screenshot of the Danger Assessment scale. Image credit: University of Virginia, School of Nursing 2016.

References

    1. World Health Organization. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2013.
    1. Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1331–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8.
    1. Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus LJ, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, Astbury J, Watts CH. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001439.
    1. World Health Organization. [2016-11-08]. Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: WHO clinical and policy guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2013.
    1. Moyer VA, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for intimate partner violence and abuse of elderly and vulnerable adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2013 Mar 19;158(6):478–86. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-6-201303190-00588.
    1. Feder GS, Hutson M, Ramsay J, Taket AR. Women exposed to intimate partner violence: expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: a meta-analysis of qualitative studies. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Jan 9;166(1):22–37. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.1.22.
    1. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S. A qualitative exploration of the nature of domestic violence in pregnancy. Violence Against Women. 2006 Jun;12(6):588–604. doi: 10.1177/1077801206289131.
    1. Taillieu TL, Brownridge DA. Violence against pregnant women: prevalence, patterns, risk factors, theories, and directions for future research. Aggress Violent Behav. 2010 Jan;15(1):14–35. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.07.013.
    1. Charles P, Perreira KM. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and 1-year post-partum. J Fam Viol. 2007 Jul 5;22(7):609–19. doi: 10.1007/s10896-007-9112-0.
    1. Eckenrode J, Ganzel B, Henderson CR, Smith E, Olds DL, Powers J, Cole R, Kitzman H, Sidora K. Preventing child abuse and neglect with a program of nurse home visitation: the limiting effects of domestic violence. JAMA. 2000 Sep 20;284(11):1385–91.
    1. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S. Women's perceptions and experiences of routine enquiry for domestic violence in a maternity service. BJOG. 2002 Jan;109(1):9–16.
    1. Eddy T, Kilburn E, Chang C, Bullock L, Sharps P. Facilitators and barriers for implementing home visit interventions to address intimate partner violence: town and gown partnerships. Nurs Clin North Am. 2008 Sep;43(3):419–35, ix. doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2008.04.005.
    1. Jack SM, Jamieson E, Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. The feasibility of screening for intimate partner violence during postpartum home visits. Can J Nurs Res. 2008 Jun;40(2):150–70.
    1. Sharps PW, Campbell J, Baty ML, Walker KS, Bair-Merritt MH. Current evidence on perinatal home visiting and intimate partner violence. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2008;37(4):480–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1552-6909.2008.00267.x.
    1. Klevens J, Sadowski L, Kee R, Trick W, Garcia D. Comparison of screening and referral strategies for exposure to partner violence. Womens Health Issues. 2012;22(1):e45–52. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2011.06.008.
    1. Greenhalgh T, Swinglehurst D. Studying technology use as social practice: the untapped potential of ethnography. BMC Med. 2011;9:45. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-9-45.
    1. Dutton M. Empowering and Healing the Battered Woman: A Model For Assessment and Intervention. New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co; 1992.
    1. Glass N, Eden KB, Bloom T, Perrin N. Computerized aid improves safety decision process for survivors of intimate partner violence. J Interpers Violence. 2009 Dec 29;25(11):1947–64. doi: 10.1177/0886260509354508.
    1. Tarzia L, Murray E, Humphreys C, Glass N, Taft A, Valpied J, Hegarty K. I-DECIDE: an online intervention drawing on the psychosocial readiness model for women experiencing domestic violence. Womens Health Issues. 2016;26(2):208–16. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2015.07.011.
    1. Koziol-McLain J, Vandal AC, Nada-Raja S, Wilson D, Glass NE, Eden KB, McLean C, Dobbs T, Case J. A Web-based intervention for abused women: the New Zealand isafe randomised controlled trial protocol. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:56. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-1395-0.
    1. Trautman DE, McCarthy ML, Miller N, Campbell JC, Kelen GD. Intimate partner violence and emergency department screening: computerized screening versus usual care. Ann Emerg Med. 2007 Apr;49(4):526–34. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.022.
    1. Doherty NF, Coombs CR, Loan-Clarke J. A re-conceptualization of the interpretive flexibility of information technologies: redressing the balance between the social and the technical. Eur J Inform Syst. 2006;15(6):569–82. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000653.
    1. Orlikowski WJ. The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organ Sci. 1992 Aug;3(3):398–427. doi: 10.1287/orsc.3.3.398.
    1. Akrich M. The de-scription of technical objects. In: Bijker WE, Law J, editors. Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1992.
    1. Sharps PW, Bullock LF, Campbell JC, Alhusen JL, Ghazarian SR, Bhandari SS, Schminkey DL. Domestic Violence Enhanced Perinatal Home Visits: the DOVE randomized clinical trial. J Womens Health. 2016 May 20;:00–00. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2015.5547.
    1. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K. Physical abuse, smoking, and substance use during pregnancy: prevalence, interrelationships, and effects on birth weight. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 1996 May;25(4):313–20.
    1. Smith PH, Earp JA, DeVellis R. Measuring battering: development of the Women's Experience with Battering (WEB) Scale. Womens Health. 1995;1(4):273–88.
    1. Campbell JC, Webster DW, Glass N. The danger assessment: validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. J Interpers Violence. 2009 Apr;24(4):653–74. doi: 10.1177/0886260508317180.
    1. Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2011.
    1. Guba E, Lincoln YS. Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, emerging confluences, revisited. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS, editors. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2011. pp. 97–128.
    1. Spradley JP. The Ethnographic Interview. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning; 1988. pp. 69–77.
    1. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc; 2015.
    1. Boyatiz R. Thematic Analysis and Code Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1998.
    1. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Analysis: An Expanded Source Book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Klein HK, Kleinman DL. The social construction of technology: structural considerations. Sci Technol Human Values. 2002 Jan 01;27(1):28–52. doi: 10.1177/016224390202700102.
    1. Pinch TJ, Bijker WE. The social construction of facts and artefacts: or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other. Soc Stud Sci. 1984;14(3):399–441. doi: 10.1177/030631284014003004.
    1. Reisenhofer S, Taft A. Women's journey to safety—the transtheoretical model in clinical practice when working with women experiencing intimate partner violence: a scientific review and clinical guidance. Patient Educ Couns. 2013 Dec;93(3):536–48. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.004.
    1. Hall LK, Kunz BF, Davis EV, Dawson RI, Powers RS. The cancer experience map: an approach to including the patient voice in supportive care solutions. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e132. doi: 10.2196/jmir.3652.
    1. French RS, McCarthy O, Baraitser P, Wellings K, Bailey JV, Free C. Young people's views and experiences of a mobile phone texting intervention to promote safer sex behavior. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2016;4(2):e26. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4302.
    1. Jennings L, Ong'ech J, Simiyu R, Sirengo M, Kassaye S. Exploring the use of mobile phone technology for the enhancement of the prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV program in Nyanza, Kenya: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1131. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1131.
    1. Goldenberg T, McDougal SJ, Sullivan PS, Stekler JD, Stephenson R. Preferences for a mobile HIV prevention app for men who have sex with men. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2014;2(4):e47. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3745.
    1. Broom MA, Ladley AS, Rhyne EA, Halloran DR. Feasibility and perception of using text messages as an adjunct therapy for low-income, minority mothers with postpartum depression. JMIR Ment Health. 2015;2(1):e4. doi: 10.2196/mental.4074.
    1. Gerbert B, Abercrombie P, Caspers N, Love C, Bronstone A. How health care providers help battered women: the survivor's perspective. Womens Health. 1999;29(3):115–35. doi: 10.1300/J013v29n03_08.
    1. Overstreet NM, Quinn DM. The intimate partner violence stigmatization model and barriers to help-seeking. Basic Appl Soc Psych. 2013 Jan 1;35(1):109–22. doi: 10.1080/01973533.2012.746599.
    1. Bacchus LJ, Bullock L, Sharps P, Burnett C, Schminkey D, Buller AM, Campbell J. ‘Opening the door’: a qualitative interpretive study of womens experiences of being asked about intimate partner violence and receiving an intervention during perinatal home visits in rural and urban settings in the USA. J Res Nurs. 2016 May 29;21(5-6):345–64. doi: 10.1177/1744987116649634.
    1. Bacchus L, Aston G. To screen or not to screen: that is the question...or is it? Asking routinely about domestic violence in pregnancy. NCT New Digest. 2005;31:8–9.
    1. Henwood F, Hart A. Articulating gender in the context of ICTs in health care: the case of electronic patient records in the maternity services. Crit Soc Policy. 2003;23(2):249–67. doi: 10.1177/0261018303023002007.
    1. Kennedy HP, Shannon MT. Keeping birth normal: research findings on midwifery care during childbirth. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2004;33(5):554–60.
    1. Cordova D, Bauermeister JA, Fessler K, Delva J, Nelson A, Nurenberg R, Mendoza LF, Alers-Rojas F, Salas-Wright CP, Youth LC. A community-engaged approach to developing an mHealth HIV/STI and drug abuse preventive intervention for primary care: a qualitative study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(4):e106. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.4620.
    1. Dehling T, Gao F, Schneider S, Sunyaev A. Exploring the far side of mobile health: information security and privacy of mobile health apps on iOS and android. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(1):e8. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.3672.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe