Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious concern for women that is associated with significant adverse health effects. Routine screening for IPV is recommended, but there are many barriers to screening that have been identified by providers, including discomfort, lack of training, and not knowing how to respond to a positive screen. This article reviews IPV screening and appropriate techniques for responding to a positive screen. IPV screening best practices include using a systematic protocol, developing a screening script, using a validated screening tool, and considerations for privacy and mandatory reporting. Responding to a positive screen should include acknowledging the experience, asking if the woman desires help, offering support and referrals, encouraging safety planning, and completing additional assessments to determine level of danger and to identify any comorbidities. Using these techniques along with therapeutic communication may increase IPV identification and create an environment in which women feel empowered to get help.

Nonoccupational, postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP) for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is offered inconsistently to patients who have been sexually assaulted. This may be due to Forensic Nurse Examiner (FNE) programs utilizing diverse nPEP protocols and HIV risk assessment algorithms. This study examines factors associated with FNEs offering nPEP to patients following sexual assault at two FNE programs in urban settings. Offering nPEP is mostly driven by site-specific protocol. At Site 1, in addition to open anal or open genital wounds, the presence of injury to the head or face was associated with FNEs offering nPEP (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 64.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [2.12, 1942.37]). At Site 2, patients assaulted by someone of Other race/ethnicity (non-White, non-African American) were 86% less likely to be offered nPEP (AOR 0.14, 95% CI = [.03, .72]) than patients assaulted by Whites. In addition to following site-specific protocols, future research should further explore the mechanisms influencing clinician decision making.

Research indicates that the need for safe housing and the economic resources to maintain safe housing are two of the most pressing concerns among abused women who are planning to or have recently left abusers. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is frequently an immediate cause or precursor to homelessness and housing instability. The aim of the study is to explore abused women's experiences accessing affordable, safe, and stable housing. To achieve the aim, adult female IPV survivors answered questions about: 1) steps that were taken to secure housing; 2) safety issues after leaving the abuser; 3) barriers to obtaining housing; and 4) responses from housing and domestic violence advocacy systems related to survivors' housing needs. Four major themes emerged from the in-depth interviews: 1) stable, affordable housing is critical in increasing safety; 2) survivors face multiple systemic or individual barriers; 3) survivors develop and utilize an array of creative and resourceful strategies; and 4) survivors identified a variety of supportive services tailored to address their needs. The findings inform practice, policy and research for both the housing and domestic violence service systems with an emphasis on collaboration to meet the complex safety and stable housing needs of survivors and their families, particularly following the impact on housing of the 2008 U.S. economic crisis and subsequent recession.

This cross-sectional study describes sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE)/forensic nurse examiner (FNE) program practices related to HIV testing, nonoccupational postexposure prophylaxis (nPEP), and common barriers to offering HIV testing and nPEP. A convenience sample of 174 SANE/FNE programs in the United States and Canada was drawn from the International Association of Forensic Nurses database, and program coordinators completed Web-based surveys. Three fourths of programs had nPEP policies, 31% provided HIV testing, and 63% offered nPEP routinely or upon request. Using χ(2) and Fisher's exact tests, a greater proportion of Canadian programs had an nPEP protocol (p = .010), provided HIV testing (p = .004), and offered nPEP (p = .0001) than U.S.-based programs. Program coordinators rated providing pre- and/or posttest counseling and follow-up as the most important barrier to HIV testing, and medication costs as the most important barrier to providing nPEP. Our results indicate HIV-related services are offered inconsistently across SANE/FNE programs.

Substance use among people living with HIV is high, and screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) is an evidence-based approach to addressing the issue. We examined whether patients would participate in a technology-based SBIRT program in an urban HIV clinic. An SBIRT intervention was programmed into the clinic's web-based patient portal linked to their personal health record. We examined: demographic, health, HIV, and substance use characteristics of participants who completed the web-based intervention compared to those who did not. Fewer than half of the 96 participants assigned to the web-based SBIRT completed it (n = 39; 41 %). Participants who completed the web-based intervention had significantly higher amphetamine SSIS scores than those who did not complete the intervention. Participants whose substance use is more harmful may be more motivated to seek help from a variety of sources. In addition, it is important that technology-based approaches to behavioral interventions in clinics take into consideration feasibility, client knowledge, and comfort using technology.

BACKGROUND:Substance use is common among people living with HIV (PLHIV) and is associated with worse outcomes along the HIV care continuum. One potentially effective clinic-based approach to addressing unhealthy substance use is screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT). METHODS:We conducted a two-arm randomized trial to examine the effects of a self-administered, computerized SBIRT intervention compared to a clinician-administered SBIRT intervention in an HIV primary clinic. Patients were surveyed before receiving the intervention and again at 1, 3, and 6 months. We administered the WHO Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test to determine Specific Substance Involvement Scores (SSIS) and to assign participants to categories of lower, moderate, or high risk to health and other problems for each substance. We collapsed moderate or severe risk responses into a single moderate-high risk category. Based on low rates of participation in the computerized arm, we conducted an "as treated" analysis to examine 6-month changes in mean SSIS among SBIRT intervention participants. RESULTS:For the overall sample (n = 208), baseline mean SSIS were in the moderate risk category for alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, cocaine, amphetamine, sedatives and opioids. Of those enrolled, 134 (64.4%) received the intervention, and 109 (52.4%) completed the 6-month follow up. There was a statistically significant decline in mean SSIS for all substances except tobacco and cannabis among participants who were at moderate-high risk at baseline. We also observed a statistically significant increase in mean SSIS for all substances except amphetamines and sedatives among participants who were at lower risk at baseline. CONCLUSIONS:Substance use among patients in this urban, safety-net, HIV primary care clinic was near universal, and moderate risk substance use was common. Among participants who received the SBIRT intervention, mean SSISs decreased among those at moderate-high risk at baseline, but increased among those at lower risk at baseline over the 6-month study period. Additional research should examine the clinical significance of SSIS changes for PLHIV, which SBIRT components drive changes in substance use scores, and what other interventions might support those patients at lower risk to maintain health and engagement along the HIV care continuum. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov study NCT01300806.

Substance use complicates HIV care and prevention. Primary care clinics are an ideal setting to screen for and offer interventions for unhealthy alcohol and drug use; however, few HIV clinics routinely screen for substance use. We enrolled 208 clinic patients at an urban underserved HIV primary care clinic. We screened the patients for substance use with the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Score Test and measured urine toxicology. Of the 168 participants who completed screening, the majority reported tobacco or nonprescribed substance use in the previous 3 months. More African American participants reported low or no risk amphetamine use compared to Hispanic, White, or Other race participants (p < .001). Implementing standard clinic practice for screening and assessing substance use in HIV primary care clinics is needed.

We examined associations between intimate partner forced sex (IPFS) and HIV sexual risk behaviors among physically abused Black women. Women aged 18-55 in intimate relationships were interviewed in health clinics in Baltimore, MD and St. Thomas and St. Croix, US Virgin Islands (USVI). Of 426 physically abused women, 38% experienced IPFS; (Baltimore = 44 and USVI = 116). USVI women experiencing IPFS were more likely to have 3+ past-year sex partners (AOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.14), casual sex partners (AOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.42-5.17), and concurrent sex partners (AOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.01-3.73) compared to their counterparts. Baltimore women reporting IPFS were more likely to have exchanged sex (AOR 3.57, 95% CI 1.19-10.75). Women experiencing IPFS were more likely to report their abuser having other sexual partners in Baltimore (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.22-8.88) and USVI (AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.20-3.44). Clinicians should consider the influence of IPFS on individual and partnership HIV sexual risk behaviors.

We examined associations between intimate partner forced sex (IPFS) and HIV sexual risk behaviors among physically abused Black women. Women aged 18-55 in intimate relationships were interviewed in health clinics in Baltimore, MD and St. Thomas and St. Croix, US Virgin Islands (USVI). Of 426 physically abused women, 38% experienced IPFS; (Baltimore = 44 and USVI = 116). USVI women experiencing IPFS were more likely to have 3+ past-year sex partners (AOR 2.06, 95% CI 1.03-4.14), casual sex partners (AOR 2.71, 95% CI 1.42-5.17), and concurrent sex partners (AOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.01-3.73) compared to their counterparts. Baltimore women reporting IPFS were more likely to have exchanged sex (AOR 3.57, 95% CI 1.19-10.75). Women experiencing IPFS were more likely to report their abuser having other sexual partners in Baltimore (AOR 3.30, 95% CI 1.22-8.88) and USVI (AOR 2.03, 95% CI 1.20-3.44). Clinicians should consider the influence of IPFS on individual and partnership HIV sexual risk behaviors.