Purpose: In recent years, there has been an increased appreciation of the importance of intimate partner violence (IPV), which is also known as domestic violence, spouse abuse, and battering, as a serious public health problem. Domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in North America. As providers of musculoskeletal care and first-contact health care practitioners for many patients, orthopaedic surgeons should be knowledgeable regarding screening and possible interventions for IPV victims. The Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons have both prepared explicit statements that orthopaedic surgeons should play a role in the screening and appropriate identification of victims of IPV. We aimed to identify the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about IPV among orthopaedic surgeons who are members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association.
Method: We surveyed members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association to identify attitudes toward IPV by posting a survey on the Orthopaedic Trauma Association website for its membership to complete. The survey consisted of three sections:
the general attitude of the orthopaedic surgeon toward intimate partner violence,
the attitude of the orthopaedic surgeon toward victims and batterers, and
the clinical relevance of intimate partner violence in orthopaedic surgery.
Results: One-hundred-and-fifty-three orthopaedic surgeons responded. The majority of the respondents were male (99%) with practices in North America (96%). Surgeons underestimated the prevalence of IPV in their practices and communities and manifested several key misconceptions:
victims must be getting something out of the abusive relationships (16%);
some women have personalities that cause the abuse (20%); and
the battering would stop if the batterer quite abusing alcohol (40%).
In the past year, approximately half of the surgeons (50.8%) acknowledged identification of a victim of IPV; however, only 4.0% of respondents currently screened for IPV among female patients with injuries. Surgeons expressed concerns about lack of knowledge in the management of abused women (30%) Guidelines for the detection and management of IPV were uncommon in most surgeons’ practices (7.8%).
Conclusion: There is a strong rationale for addressing IPV as an issue that is relevant to the field of orthopaedic surgery just as it has been shown to be relevant to primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology. Our study found that orthopaedic surgeons underestimated the prevalence of IPV in their practices, held multiple misperceptions about IPV, and demonstrated discomfort in identifying and treating IPV. Targeted educational programs on IPV are needed for surgeons who routinely care for injured women.
