INTRODUCTION: Congressional legislation mandated research on intimate partner violence (IPV) among veterans. We convened a panel addressing veteran-related IPV to arrive at evidence-based recommendations. METHODS: A panel composed of community, decision-maker, health service provider, and research representatives addressed veteran-related IPV prevalence, risk factors, consequences, and interventions. The panel process followed a modified Delphi approach centered around 2 days of virtual moderated discussions and pre- and post-panel surveys. RESULTS: Panelists stressed that definitions must include examples beyond physical violence to adequately communicate the scope of IPV for veterans. They highlighted that prevalence varies due to sampling strategies that should be communicated together with estimates. Panelists identified additional risk factors particularly salient to and sometimes unique to veterans such as post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality, and deployment-related stress on relationships due to prolonged separation. There was no strong agreement on the consequences of IPV unique to veterans. However, there was universal agreement that the guiding principles of VA's National IPV Assistance Program (emphasizing a person-centered, veteran-centric, recovery-oriented, and trauma-informed approach) are critical for program integrity and growth. Recommendations included providing screening skills training and education for all health care staff; establishing a "no wrong door" policy for veterans seeking help; screening for IPV among veterans who are expressing suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, substance abuse, or sleeping problems; engaging in safety planning around homicide risk; and reinforcing the need for screening, staffing, clinical services, staff education, and training. CONCLUSIONS: Panel results can help clinicians, policy makers, and researchers better address IPV in veterans.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hempel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: