97924 • Domestic Violence: The Florida Requirement

Table of Contents

97924 • Domestic Violence: The Florida Requirement

How to Receive Credit

Course Overview

Audience

Accreditations & Approvals

Designations of Credit

Individual State Nursing Approvals

Individual State Behavioral Health Approvals

Special Approvals

Course Objective

Learning Objectives

Faculty

Faculty Disclosure

Division Planners

Division Planners Disclosure

Director of Development and Academic Affairs

Director Disclosure Statement

About the Sponsor

Disclosure Statement

Implicit Bias in Health Care

1. INTRODUCTION

2. DEFINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

3. NATIONAL AND STATE STATISTICS AND LEGISLATION

FLORIDA

4. IDENTIFYING GROUPS AT RISK FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

PREGNANT WOMEN

CHILDREN

ELDERLY

MEN

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER/QUESTIONING VICTIMS

5. CHARACTERISTICS OF PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

6. SCREENING FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

7. ASSESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE ASSESSMENT

8. INTERVENTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

9. DOCUMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP

Works Cited

Evidence-Based Practice Recommendations Citations

97924 • Domestic Violence: The Florida Requirement

Marjorie Conner Allen, BSN, JD

Alice Yick Flanagan, PhD, MSW

www.netce.com

Copyright © 2026 NetCE, All rights reserved.

Domestic violence continues to be a prevalent problem in the United States today. Because of the number of individuals affected, it is likely that most healthcare professionals will encounter patients in their practice who are victims. Accordingly, it is essential that healthcare professionals are taught to recognize and accurately interpret behaviors associated with domestic violence. It is incumbent upon the healthcare professional to establish and implement protocols for early identification of domestic violence victims and their abusers. In order to prevent domestic violence and promote the well-being of their patients, healthcare professionals in all settings must take the initiative to properly assess all women for abuse during each visit and, for those women who are or may be victims, to offer education, counseling, and referral information.

97924 • Domestic Violence: The Florida Requirement

Education Category. Ethics - Human Rights

Release Date. 08/01/2026

Expiration Date. 07/31/2029

How to Receive Credit

To complete this course for continuing education credit please go to http://www.netce.com/course/3604 in your browser.

For assistance with receiving continuing education credit, please contact us at help@netce.com.

Course Overview

Domestic violence continues to be a prevalent problem in the United States today. Because of the number of individuals affected, it is likely that most healthcare professionals will encounter patients in their practice who are victims. Accordingly, it is essential that healthcare professionals are taught to recognize and accurately interpret behaviors associated with domestic violence. It is incumbent upon the healthcare professional to establish and implement protocols for early identification of domestic violence victims and their abusers. In order to prevent domestic violence and promote the well-being of their patients, healthcare professionals in all settings must take the initiative to properly assess all women for abuse during each visit and, for those women who are or may be victims, to offer education, counseling, and referral information.

Audience

This course is designed for all Florida healthcare professionals required to complete domestic violence education.

Accreditations & Approvals

In support of improving patient care, TRC Healthcare/NetCE is jointly accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME), the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE), and the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), to provide continuing education for the healthcare team. NetCE has been approved by NBCC as an Approved Continuing Education Provider, ACEP No. 6361. Programs that do not qualify for NBCC credit are clearly identified. NetCE is solely responsible for all aspects of the programs. NetCE is approved to offer continuing education through the Florida Board of Nursing Home Administrators, Provider #50-2405. As a Jointly Accredited Organization, NetCE is approved to offer social work continuing education by the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) Approved Continuing Education (ACE) program. Organizations, not individual courses, are approved under this program. Regulatory boards are the final authority on courses accepted for continuing education credit. Continuing Education (CE) credits for psychologists are provided through the co-sponsorship of the American Psychological Association (APA) Office of Continuing Education in Psychology (CEP). The APA CEP Office maintains responsibility for the content of the programs. NetCE is accredited by the International Accreditors for Continuing Education and Training (IACET). NetCE complies with the ANSI/IACET Standard, which is recognized internationally as a standard of excellence in instructional practices. As a result of this accreditation, NetCE is authorized to issue the IACET CEU. NetCE is recognized by the New York State Education Department's State Board for Social Work as an approved provider of continuing education for licensed social workers #SW-0033. This course is considered self-study, as defined by the New York State Board for Social Work. NetCE is recognized by the New York State Education Department's State Board for Mental Health Practitioners as an approved provider of continuing education for licensed mental health counselors #MHC-0021. This course is considered self-study by the New York State Board of Mental Health Counseling. NetCE is recognized by the New York State Education Department's State Board for Mental Health Practitioners as an approved provider of continuing education for licensed marriage and family therapists. #MFT-0015.This course is considered self-study by the New York State Board of Marriage and Family Therapy. Materials that are included in this course may include interventions and modalities that are beyond the authorized practice of licensed master social work and licensed clinical social work in New York. As a licensed professional, you are responsible for reviewing the scope of practice, including activities that are defined in law as beyond the boundaries of practice for an LMSW and LCSW. A licensee who practices beyond the authorized scope of practice could be charged with unprofessional conduct under the Education Law and Regents Rules.

Designations of Credit

This activity was planned by and for the healthcare team, and learners will receive 2 Interprofessional Continuing Education (IPCE) credit(s) for learning and change. NetCE designates this enduring material for a maximum of 2 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. NetCE designates this continuing education activity for 2 ANCC contact hour(s). NetCE designates this continuing education activity for 2.4 hours for Alabama nurses. NetCE designates this continuing education activity for 1 NBCC clock hour(s). Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the participant to earn up to 2 MOC points in the American Board of Internal Medicine's (ABIM) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. Participants will earn MOC points equivalent to the amount of CME credits claimed for the activity. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABIM MOC credit. Completion of this course constitutes permission to share the completion data with ACCME. Social workers participating in this intermediate to advanced course will receive 2 Clinical continuing education clock hours. This activity has been approved for the American Board of Anesthesiology’s® (ABA) requirements for Part II: Lifelong Learning and Self-Assessment of the American Board of Anesthesiology’s (ABA) redesigned Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology Program® (MOCA®), known as MOCA 2.0®. Please consult the ABA website, www.theABA.org, for a list of all MOCA 2.0 requirements. Maintenance of Certification in Anesthesiology Program® and MOCA® are registered certification marks of the American Board of Anesthesiology®. MOCA 2.0® is a trademark of the American Board of Anesthesiology®. Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the evaluation component, enables the learner to earn credit toward the CME and/or Self-Assessment requirements of the American Board of Surgery's Continuous Certification program. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit learner completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABS credit. Successful completion of this CME activity, which includes participation in the activity with individual assessments of the participant and feedback to the participant, enables the participant to earn 2 MOC points in the American Board of Pediatrics' (ABP) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) program. It is the CME activity provider's responsibility to submit participant completion information to ACCME for the purpose of granting ABP MOC credit. This activity has been designated for 2 Lifelong Learning (Part II) credits for the American Board of Pathology Continuing Certification Program. Through an agreement between the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, medical practitioners participating in the Royal College MOC Program may record completion of accredited activities registered under the ACCME's "CME in Support of MOC" program in Section 3 of the Royal College's MOC Program. This home study course is approved by the Florida Board of Nursing Home Administrators for 2 credit hour(s). NetCE is authorized by IACET to offer 0.2 CEU(s) for this program. AACN Synergy CERP Category B. NetCE designates this continuing education activity for 2 credit(s).

Individual State Nursing Approvals

In addition to states that accept ANCC, NetCE is approved as a provider of continuing education in nursing by: Alabama, Provider #ABNP0353 (valid through July 30, 2029); Arkansas, Provider #50-2405; California, BRN Provider #CEP9784; California, LVN Provider #V10662; California, PT Provider #V10842; District of Columbia, Provider #50-2405; Florida, Provider #50-2405; Georgia, Provider #50-2405; Kentucky, Provider #7-0054 through 12/31/2027; South Carolina, Provider #50-2405; West Virginia RN and APRN, Provider #50-2405.

Individual State Behavioral Health Approvals

In addition to states that accept ASWB, NetCE is approved as a provider of continuing education by the following state boards: Alabama State Board of Social Work Examiners, Provider #0515; Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling, CE Broker Provider #50-2405; Illinois Division of Professional Regulation for Social Workers, License #159.001094; Illinois Division of Professional Regulation for Licensed Professional and Clinical Counselors, License #197.000185; Illinois Division of Professional Regulation for Marriage and Family Therapists, License #168.000190;

Special Approvals

This course fulfills the Florida requirement for 2 hours of Domestic Violence education every third renewal period. This activity is designed to comply with the requirements of California Assembly Bill 1195, Cultural and Linguistic Competency.

Course Objective

The purpose of this course is to enable healthcare professionals in all practice settings to define domestic violence and identify those who are affected by domestic violence in the United States. This course describes how a victim can be accurately diagnosed and identifies the community resources available in the state of Florida for domestic violence victims.

Learning Objectives

Upon completion of this course, you should be able to:

Faculty

Marjorie Conner Allen, BSN, JD, received her Bachelor of Science in Nursing degree from the University of Florida, Gainesville, in 1984. She began her nursing career at Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics at the University of Florida, Gainesville. While practicing nursing at Shands, she gave continuing education seminars regarding the nursing implications for dealing with adolescents with terminal illness. In 1988, Ms. Allen moved to Atlanta, Georgia where she worked at Egleston Children’s Hospital at Emory University in the bone marrow transplant unit. In the fall of 1989, she began law school at Florida State University. After graduating from law school in 1992, Ms. Allen took a two-year job as law clerk to the Honorable William Terrell Hodges, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida. After completing her clerkship, Ms. Allen began her employment with the law firm of Smith, Hulsey & Busey in Jacksonville, Florida where she has worked in the litigation department defending hospitals and nurses in medical malpractice actions. Ms. Allen resides in Jacksonville and is currently in-house counsel to the Mayo Clinic Jacksonville.

Alice Yick Flanagan, PhD, MSW, received her Master’s in Social Work from Columbia University, School of Social Work. She has clinical experience in mental health in correctional settings, psychiatric hospitals, and community health centers. In 1997, she received her PhD from UCLA, School of Public Policy and Social Research. Dr. Yick Flanagan completed a year-long post-doctoral fellowship at Hunter College, School of Social Work in 1999. In that year she taught the course Research Methods and Violence Against Women to Masters degree students, as well as conducting qualitative research studies on death and dying in Chinese American families.

Previously acting as a faculty member at Capella University and Northcentral University, Dr. Yick Flanagan is currently a contributing faculty member at Walden University, School of Social Work, and a dissertation chair at Grand Canyon University, College of Doctoral Studies, working with Industrial Organizational Psychology doctoral students. She also serves as a consultant/subject matter expert for the New York City Board of Education and publishing companies for online curriculum development, developing practice MCAT questions in the area of psychology and sociology. Her research focus is on the area of culture and mental health in ethnic minority communities.

Faculty Disclosure

Contributing faculty, Marjorie Conner Allen, BSN, JD, has disclosed no relevant financial relationship with any product manufacturer or service provider mentioned.

Contributing faculty, Alice Yick Flanagan, PhD, MSW, has disclosed no relevant financial relationship with any product manufacturer or service provider mentioned.

Division Planners

John M. Leonard, MD

Mary Franks, MSN, APRN, FNP-C

Division Planners Disclosure

The division planners have disclosed no relevant financial relationship with any product manufacturer or service provider mentioned.

Director of Development and Academic Affairs

Sarah Campbell

Director Disclosure Statement

The Director of Development and Academic Affairs has disclosed no relevant financial relationship with any product manufacturer or service provider mentioned.

About the Sponsor

The purpose of NetCE is to provide challenging curricula to assist healthcare professionals to raise their levels of expertise while fulfilling their continuing education requirements, thereby improving the quality of healthcare.

Our contributing faculty members have taken care to ensure that the information and recommendations are accurate and compatible with the standards generally accepted at the time of publication. The publisher disclaims any liability, loss or damage incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents. Participants are cautioned about the potential risk of using limited knowledge when integrating new techniques into practice.

Disclosure Statement

It is the policy of NetCE not to accept commercial support. Furthermore, commercial interests are prohibited from distributing or providing access to this activity to learners.

Implicit Bias in Health Care

The role of implicit biases on healthcare outcomes has become a concern, as there is some evidence that implicit biases contribute to health disparities, professionals' attitudes toward and interactions with patients, quality of care, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. This may produce differences in help-seeking, diagnoses, and ultimately treatments and interventions. Implicit biases may also unwittingly produce professional behaviors, attitudes, and interactions that reduce patients' trust and comfort with their provider, leading to earlier termination of visits and/or reduced adherence and follow-up. Disadvantaged groups are marginalized in the healthcare system and vulnerable on multiple levels; health professionals' implicit biases can further exacerbate these existing disadvantages.

Interventions or strategies designed to reduce implicit bias may be categorized as change-based or control-based. Change-based interventions focus on reducing or changing cognitive associations underlying implicit biases. These interventions might include challenging stereotypes. Conversely, control-based interventions involve reducing the effects of the implicit bias on the individual's behaviors. These strategies include increasing awareness of biased thoughts and responses. The two types of interventions are not mutually exclusive and may be used synergistically.

1. INTRODUCTION

Domestic violence continues to be a prevalent problem in the United States today. Because of the number of individuals affected, it is likely that most healthcare professionals will encounter patients in their practice who are victims. Accordingly, it is essential that healthcare professionals are taught to recognize and accurately interpret behaviors associated with domestic violence. It is incumbent upon the healthcare professional to establish and implement protocols for early identification of domestic violence victims and their abusers. In order to prevent domestic violence and promote the well-being of their patients, healthcare professionals in all settings should take the initiative to properly assess all women for abuse during each visit and, for those women who are or may be victims, to offer education, counseling, and referral information.

Victims of domestic violence suffer emotional, psychologic, and physical abuse, all of which can result in both acute and chronic signs and symptoms of physical and mental disease, illness, and injury. Frequently, the injuries sustained require abused victims to seek care from healthcare professionals immediately after their victimization. Subsequently, physicians and nurses are often the first healthcare providers that victims encounter and are in a critical position to identify domestic violence victims in a variety of clinical practice settings where victims receive care. Accordingly, each healthcare professional should educate himself or herself to enhance awareness of the presence of abuse victims in his or her particular practice or clinical setting.

Specifically, healthcare professionals should be aware of the signs and symptoms associated with domestic violence. In addition, when family violence cases are identified, there should be a plan of action that includes providing information on, and referral to, local community resources related to legal aid, sheltering, victim counseling, batterer counseling, advocacy groups, and child protection.

2. DEFINING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Domestic violence, which is sometimes also referred to as spousal abuse, battering, or intimate partner violence (IPV), refers to the victimization of an individual with whom the abuser has or has had an intimate or romantic relationship. Researchers in the field of domestic violence have not agreed on a uniform definition of what constitutes violence or an abusive relationship. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines IPV as, "abuse or aggression that occurs in a romantic relationship" [1]. According to the Florida Department of Children and Families, domestic violence is "a pattern of abusive behaviors that adults use to maintain power and control over their intimate partners or former partners. People who abuse their partners use a variety of tactics to coerce, intimidate, threaten, and frighten their victims" [2]. Domestic violence may include physical violence, sexual violence, emotional abuse, economic abuse, isolation, pet abuse, threats relating to children, and a variety of other behaviors meant to increase fear, intimidation, and power over the victim [2]. Florida law defines domestic violence as "any assault, aggravated assault, battery, aggravated battery, sexual assault, sexual battery, stalking, aggravated stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, or any criminal offense resulting in physical injury or death of one family or household member by another family or household member" [3]. Family or household members, according to Florida definition, must "be currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same single dwelling unit" [3]. Domestic violence knows no boundaries. It occurs in intimate relationships regardless of race, religion, culture, or socioeconomic status [2].

Whatever the definition, it is important for healthcare professionals to understand that domestic violence, in the form of emotional and psychologic abuse, sexual abuse, and physical violence, is prevalent in our society. Because of the similar nature of the definitions, this course will use the terms "domestic violence" and "IPV" interchangeably.

3. NATIONAL AND STATE STATISTICS AND LEGISLATION

Domestic violence is one of the most serious public health problems in the United States. More than 34.0 % of women and 17% of men have a lifetime history of IPV [4]. In Florida, the weighted lifetime prevalence of IPV (including rape, physical violence, and/or stalking) is 23.8% among women. The weighted lifetime prevalence of IPV among men in Florida is not well documented and not considered statistically stable. However, the national estimated lifetime prevalence of IPV among men is 11.9% [4]. Although many of these incidents consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting, IPV resulted in the death of 11,466 individuals the United States between 2020–2024 (nearly 2,300 victims annually) [5]. The most recent data from Florida indicates approximately 192 IPV-related deaths occurred in Florida in 2021, accounting for nearly 9% of the nation's total annually [5,6]. One of the difficulties in addressing the problem is that abuse is prevalent in all demographics, regardless of age, ethnicity, race, religious denomination, education, or socioeconomic status [2].

Victims of abuse often suffer severe physical injuries and will likely seek care at a hospital or clinic. The health and economic consequences of domestic violence are significant, although difficult to accurately capture due to the vast number of variables associated with IPV. To first address the true economic burden of IPV, the U.S. Congress funded the CDC to conduct a study, which resulted in the 2003 CDC report Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States [7]. The report relied on data from the National Violence Against Women Survey conducted in 1995 and estimated the costs of IPV by measuring how many female victims were nonfatally injured; how many women used medical and mental healthcare services; and how many women lost time from paid work and household chores. The estimated total annual cost of IPV against women in the 1995 survey was more than $5.8 billion [7]. However, there were several limitations to this study, and subsequent cost estimates were often based on this data, underestimating the true economic burden of domestic violence.

In 2018, an updated study that aimed to determine the lifetime economic burden of IPV per individual was published. This study used the 2012 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data and previous studies in a mathematical model. Costs included those attributable to impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs [8]. Analysis (conducted in 2017) found that the estimated IPV lifetime cost was $103,767 per female victim and $23,414 per male victim. Based on a reported 43 million U.S. adults with a history of IPV, the population economic burden equates to nearly $3.6 trillion (2014 US$) over the victims' lifetimes, including [8]:

- $2.1 trillion (59% of total) in medical costs

- $1.3 trillion (37%) in lost productivity among victims and perpetrators

- $73 billion (2%) in criminal justice activities

- $62 billion (2%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage

It is estimated that government sources pay an estimated $1.3 trillion (37%) of the lifetime economic burden [4,8].

The national rate of nonfatal domestic violence against women declined 72% between 1993 and 2011 and continues to decline [9]. The rate of overall violent crime fell by nearly 60% in this same time period [9]. Studies reveal that several factors may have contributed to the reduction in violence, including a decline in the marriage rate and decrease of domesticity, better access to federally funded domestic violence shelters, improvements in women's economic status, and demographic trends, such as the aging of the population [10,11]. Of note, declines in the economy and stress associated with financial hardship and unemployment are significant contributors to IPV in the United States. Following the economic downturn in late 2008, there was a significant increase in the use of the National Domestic Violence Hotline in 2009, with more than half of victims reporting a change in household financial situation in the last year [12]. This trend continued with the COVID-19 pandemic, with stressors from lockdown orders, unemployment, financial insecurity, childcare and homeschool responsibilities, and poor coping strategies (e.g., substance abuse) increasing the rate of domestic violence. Reports showed a 9.7% increase in domestic violence calls for service in the first two months state-mandated lockdowns were imposed; furthermore, the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice reported an increase of 8.1% in domestic violence incidents within the first months of mandated stay-at-home orders [10].

FLORIDA

In response to troubling domestic violence statistics, Governor Lawton Chiles appointed a Task Force on Domestic Violence on September 28, 1993, to investigate the problems associated with domestic violence in Florida and to compile recommendations as to how the problems should be approached and ultimately resolved. On January 31, 1994, the Task Force issued its first report on domestic violence. This report recommended standards to accurately measure the extent of domestic violence and strategies for increasing public awareness and education. It identified programs and resources that are available to victims in Florida, made legislative and budgetary suggestions for needed changes, provided a methodology for implementing these changes, and identified areas of domestic violence that require further study.

As a result of this report, Florida enacted legislation during the 1995 session implementing various suggestions of the Task Force. Specifically, the Legislature amended Section 455.222 of the Florida Statutes to require that all physicians, osteopaths, nurses, dentists, dental hygienists, midwives, psychologists, and psychotherapists obtain, as part of their biennial continuing education requirements, a one-hour continuing education course on domestic violence [14]. In June of 2006, Governor Jeb Bush signed into law House Bill 699. The bill, which went into effect July 1, 2006, changed the domestic violence continuing education requirement from one hour every renewal period to two hours every third renewal period.

In 1997, at the request of the Governor's Task Force, a workgroup was established by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) to evaluate the feasibility of tracking incidents of domestic violence in the state [15]. This resulted in the creation of the Domestic Violence Data Resource Center (DVDRC). The original mission of the DVDRC was to collect information related to domestic violence and to report and maintain the information in a statewide tracking system [16]. Domestic Violence Fatality Review Teams were established to examine those cases of domestic violence that resulted in a fatality and identify potential changes in policy or procedure that might prevent future deaths. The teams were comprised of representatives from law enforcement, the courts, social services, state attorneys, domestic violence centers, and others who may come into contact with domestic violence victims and perpetrators [17]. In 2000, the creation of Florida Statute 741.316 required the FDLE to annually publish a report based on the data gathered by the Fatality Review Teams [16]. Due to budgetary constraints, responsibility of compiling this data transferred to the Department of Children and Families in 2008 [18].

As part of Governor Jeb Bush's initiative, the "Family Protection Act" was signed into law in 2001. The act requires a 5-day mandatory jail term for any crime of domestic battery in which the perpetrator deliberately injures the victim. The law also makes a second battery crime a felony offense, treating offenders as serious criminals. Additional legislation, signed into law in 2002, includes Senate Bills 716 and 1974. Senate Bill 716 protects domestic violence victims by including dating relationships of six months in the definition of domestic violence laws. Senate Bill 1974 requires judges to inform victims of their rights, including the right to appear, be notified, seek restitution, and make a victim-impact statement. Governor Bush also created the Violence Free Florida campaign to increase public awareness of domestic violence issues [19].

In 2003, Governor Bush signed House Bill 1099, which transferred funding authority of the Florida Domestic Violence Trust Fund from the Department of Children and Families to the Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence. According to the Domestic Violence in Florida 2010–2011 Annual Report to the Legislature, this has strengthened domestic violence services provided by streamlining the process of allocating funds [20].

In 2007, the Domestic Violence Leave Act was signed into law by Governor Charlie Crist [18]. This law requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide guaranteed leave for domestic violence issues.

In 2021, the FDLE reported 103,915 domestic violence offenses [6]. An estimated 19.1% of domestic violence incidents involved spouses and 28.3% involved cohabitants. Domestic violence offenses resulted in the death of 192 victims in Florida in 2021, a number that has been decreasing since 2014 [6]. Domestic violence accounted for 16.9% of the state's murders in 2020 [6].

In their 2026 Annual Report, Fatality Review Teams summarized 20 cases of domestic violence fatalities and near fatalities [21]. The most significant findings included the following observations [21]:

- The perpetrators were predominantly male (90%) with female victims (85%). Approximately 40% had prior domestic violence-related criminal histories, and 55% had non-domestic-violence-related criminal histories.

- In 35% of fatalities, the perpetrators had a known "do not contact" order filed against them, and 25% of perpetrators had a known permanent injunction for protection against them filed by someone other than the victim.

- History of substance abuse by the perpetrator was identified in 50% of the cases and diagnosed mental health disorders in 30%.

- In most cases, neither the decedent nor perpetrator sought help from the various intervention programs available to them.

4. IDENTIFYING GROUPS AT RISK FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Healthcare professionals are in a critical position to identify domestic violence victims in a variety of clinical practice settings. Nurses are often the first healthcare provider a victim of domestic violence will encounter in a healthcare setting and should therefore be prepared to provide care and support for these victims. Although women are most often the victims, domestic violence extends to others in the household as well. For example, domestic violence includes abused men, children abused by their parents or parents abused by their children, elder abuse, and abuse among siblings [3].

Many victims of abuse sustain injuries that lead them to present to hospital emergency departments. Research has found that up to 14% of female patients admitted to the emergency department are treated for IPV-related conditions, between 5% and 38% of women report IPV violence in the past year, and an estimated 40% of women seen in emergency departments reported a history of abuse in their lifetime [22]. These statistics demonstrate that healthcare professionals who work in acute care, such as hospital emergency rooms, should maintain a high index of suspicion for battering of the patients that they see. Healthcare professionals who work in these settings should work with hospital administrators to establish and institute assessment mechanisms to accurately detect these victims.

For every victim of abuse, there is also a perpetrator. Like their victims, perpetrators of domestic violence come from all socioeconomic backgrounds, races, religions, and walks of life [1,4]. Accordingly, healthcare professionals should likewise be aware that seemingly supportive family members may, in fact, be abusers.

PREGNANT WOMEN

Because a gynecologist or obstetrician is frequently a woman's primary care physician, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends that all women be routinely assessed for signs of IPV (i.e., physical and psychologic abuse, reproductive coercion, and progressive isolation), including during prenatal visits, and providers should offer support and referral information for those being abused [23]. According to the ACOG, IPV affects as many as 324,000 pregnant women each year [23]. The CDC reports that 6% of women with a recent live birth experienced IPV during pregnancy, with two-thirds of those individuals having experienced IPV before pregnancy [24]. Between 2018 and 2019, the homicide rate was 16% higher among women who were pregnant or one year post-pregnancy, compared with those who were not pregnant. In addition, nearly half (45.3%) of homicides during pregnancy/one-year post-pregnancy were found to involve IPV [24]. As with all domestic violence statistics, these estimates are presumed to be lower than the actual incidence as a result of under-reporting and lack of data on women whose pregnancies ended in fetal or maternal death. This makes IPV more prevalent among pregnant women than some of the health conditions included in prenatal screenings, including pre-eclampsia and gestational diabetes [23]. Because 96% of pregnant women receive prenatal care, this is an optimal time to assess for domestic violence and develop trusting relationships with the women. Possible factors that may predispose pregnant women to IPV include being unmarried, lower socioeconomic status, young maternal age, unintended pregnancy, delayed prenatal care, lack of social support, and use of tobacco, alcohol, or illegal drugs [23,25].

The overarching problem of violence against pregnant women cannot be ignored, especially as both mother and fetus are at risk. At this particularly vulnerable time in a woman's life, an organized clinical construct leading to immediate diagnosis and medical intervention will ensure that therapeutic opportunities are available to the pregnant woman and will reduce the potential negative outcomes [26]. Healthcare professionals should also be aware of the possible psychologic consequences of abuse during pregnancy. There is a higher risk of stress, depression, and addiction to alcohol and drugs in abused women. These conditions may result in damage to the fetus from tobacco, drugs, and alcohol and a loss of interest on the part of the mother in her or her baby's health [27,28]. Possible direct injuries to the fetus may result from maternal trauma [23].

Control of reproductive or sexual health is also a recognized trend in IPV. This type of abuse includes trying to impregnate or become pregnant against a partner's wishes, refusal to use birth control (e.g., condoms, oral contraceptives), or stopping a partner from using birth control [4].

CHILDREN

Children exposed to family violence are at high risk for abuse and for emotional damage that may affect them as they grow older. The Department of Justice estimates that of the 76 million children in the United States, 46 million will be exposed to some type of violence during their childhood [29]. Results of the National Survey of Children's Exposure to Violence indicated that 11% of children were exposed to IPV at home within the last year, and as many as 26% of children were exposed to at least one form of family violence during their lifetimes [30]. Of those children exposed to IPV, 90% were direct eyewitnesses of the violence; the remaining children were exposed by either hearing the violence or seeing or being told about injuries [30]. Of note, according to Florida criminal law, witnessing domestic violence is defined as "violence in the presence of a child if an offender is convicted of a primary offense of domestic violence, and that offense was committed in the presence of a child under age 16 who is a family or household member with the victim or perpetrator" [31].

A number of studies indicate that child witnesses are at increased risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, impaired development, aggressive behavior, anxiety, difficulties with peers, substance abuse, and academic problems than the average child [32,33,34]. Children exposed to violence may also be more prone to dating violence (as a perpetrator or a victim), and the ability to effectively cope with partnerships and parenting later in life may be affected, continuing the cycle of violence into the next generation [35,36].

In addition to witnessing violence, various studies have shown that these children may also become direct victims of violence, and children who both witness and experience violence are at the greatest risk for adverse psychosocial outcomes [37]. Research indicates that in 30% and 65% of families in which domestic violence is identified, some form of co-occurring child maltreatment is also present [38,39]. Moreover, victims of abuse will often turn on their children; statistics demonstrate that 85% of domestic violence victims abuse or neglect their children. The 2021 Crime in Florida report found that more than 19% of domestic homicide victims were children killed by a parent [6]. Adolescents are also victims of IPV, with an estimated 7.1% of females and 3.7% of males in the United States experiencing first IPV victimization before 18 years of age [40]. Globally, 24% of adolescent girls will have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence by the time they are 20 years of age [41]. Using data from 2003–2016, it was found that 6.9% of all homicides among individuals 11 to 18 years of age in the United States were classified as intimate partner-related homicide [42]. Abused teens often do not report abuse. Individuals 12 to 19 years of age report only 35.7% of crimes against them, compared with 54% in older age groups [43]. Accordingly, healthcare professionals who see young children and adolescents in their practice (e.g., pediatricians, family physicians, school nurses, pediatric nurse practitioners, community health nurses) should have the tools necessary to detect these "silent victims" of domestic violence and to intervene quickly to protect young children and adolescents from further abuse. Without such critical intervention, the cycle of violence will never end.

ELDERLY

Abused and neglected elders, who may be mistreated by their spouses, partners, children, or other relatives, are among the most isolated of all victims of family violence. In a national study conducted by the National Institute of Justice in 2010, 4.6% of participants (community dwelling adults 60 years of age or older) were victims of emotional abuse in the past year, 1.6% physical abuse, 0.6% sexual abuse, 5.1% potential neglect, and 5.2% current financial abuse by a family member [44]. A 2017 study found a self-reported incidence of 11.6% psychological abuse, 2.6% physical abuse, 6.8% financial abuse, 4.2% neglect, and 0.9% sexual abuse [45]. The estimated annual incidence of all elder abuse types is 2% to 10%, but it is believed to be severely under-measured. According to one study, only one in 24 cases of elder abuse are reported to the authorities [46].

The prevalence rate of elder abuse in institutional settings is not clear. However, in a 2019 review of nine studies, 64% of elder care facility staff disclosed to having perpetrated abuse against an elderly resident in the past year [47]. In a random sample survey, 24.3% of respondents reported at least one incident of elder physical abuse perpetrated by a nursing home staff member [48].

Evidence Based Practice Recommendation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening for caregiver abuse and neglect in older or vulnerable adults.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835641

Last Accessed: July 24, 2026

Strength of Recommendation: I (Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.)

As healthcare professionals in Florida, which leads the nation in percentage of older residents, it is important to understand that the needs of older Floridians will increase as will the numbers of elder victims of domestic violence. Because elder abuse can occur in family homes, nursing homes, board and care facilities, and even medical facilities, healthcare professionals should remain keenly aware of the potential for abuse. When abuse occurs between elder partners, it is primarily manifested in one of two ways: either as a long-standing pattern of marital violence or as abuse originating in old age. In the latter case, abuse may be precipitated by issues related to advanced age, including the stress that accompanies disability and changing family relationships [46].

It is important to understand that the domestic violence dynamic involves not only a victim but a perpetrator as well. For example, an adult son or daughter who lives in the parents' home and depends on the parents for financial support may be in a position to inflict abuse. This abuse may not always manifest itself as violence but can lead to an environment in which the elder parent is controlled and isolated. The elder may be hesitant to seek help because the abuser's absence from the home may leave the elder without a caregiver [46]. Because these elderly victims are often isolated, dependent, infirm, or mentally impaired, it is easy for the abuse to remain undetected. Healthcare professionals in all settings should remain aware of the potential for abuse and keep a watchful eye on this particularly vulnerable group.

MEN

Statistics confirm that domestic violence is predominantly perpetrated by men against women; however, there is evidence that women also exhibit IPV-related behavior against their male partners [4,49]. Approximately one in six men (20.7 million individuals) in the United States experienced contact sexual violence, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner during their lifetime, compared with one in three women (nearly 43.5 million) [1,49]. Nearly 56% of first-time victimizations occurred by 25 years of age, with many occurring before 18 years of age. When further examined according to abuse and perpetrator characteristics, it was found that 48% of male victims of lifetime non-contact unwanted sexual experiences reported only male perpetrators and 52% reported female perpetrators. Among male victims of stalking, 46% of male victims were stalked by only female perpetrators and 43% by only male perpetrators [49]. In 2021, it was estimated that 34% of female victims of murder and non-negligent manslaughter were killed by an intimate partner, compared with 6% of males [50]. Although women are more often victims of IPV, healthcare professionals should help remove the stigma and always keep in mind that men can also be victimized and assess accordingly.

LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, TRANSGENDER, AND QUEER/QUESTIONING VICTIMS

Domestic violence exists in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) communities, and the rates are thought to mirror those of heterosexual women—approximately 25% [51]. However, women living with female intimate partners experience less IPV than women living with men [6]. Conversely, men living with male intimate partners experience more IPV than do men who live with female intimate partners [6]. In addition, 78% of IPV homicide victims reported in 2017 were transgender women or cisgender men [52]. This supports other statistics indicating that IPV is perpetrated primarily by men. A form of abuse specific to the gay community is for an abuser to threaten or to proceed with "outing" a partner to others [51,53].

Transgender individuals appear to be at particular risk for violence. According to a large national report, transgender victims of IPV were 1.9 times more likely to experience physical violence and 3.9 times more likely to experience discrimination than other members of the LGBTQ+ community [52].

In 2017, an annual national report recorded 52 incidences of hate violence-related homicides of LGBTQ+ people, the highest incident number recorded in its 20-year history [52]. This increasing prevalence of anti-LGBTQ+ violence can exacerbate IPV in LGBTQ+ communities. For example, a person who loses their job because of anti-trans bias may be more financially reliant on an unhealthy relationship. An abusive partner may also use the violence that an LGBTQ+ person experiences from their family as a way of isolating that person further [52].

Because of the stigma of being LGBTQ+, victims may be reticent to report abuse and afraid that their sexual orientation or biologic sex will be revealed. In one study, the three major barriers to seeking help were a limited understanding of the problem of LGBTQ+ IPV, stigma, and systemic inequities [53]. Many in this community feel that support services (e.g., shelters, support groups, crisis hotlines) are not available to them due to homophobia of the service providers. Unfortunately, this results in the victim feeling isolated and unsupported. Healthcare professionals should strive to be sensitive and supportive when working with homosexual patients.

5. CHARACTERISTICS OF PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Abuser characteristics have been studied far less frequently than victim characteristics. Some studies suggest a correlation between the occurrence of abuse and the consumption of alcohol. An individual who abuses alcohol is also likely to abuse their mate, although the abuser may not necessarily be inebriated at the time the abuse is inflicted [54]. Domestic violence assessment questionnaires should include questions that explore social drinking habits of both victims and their partners.

Other studies demonstrate that abusive mates are generally possessive and jealous. Another characteristic related to the abuser's dependency and jealousy is extreme suspiciousness. This characteristic may be so extreme as to border on paranoia [55]. Domestic violence victims frequently report that abusers are extremely controlling of the everyday activities of the family. This domination is generally all encompassing and often includes maintaining complete control of finances and activities of the victim (e.g., work, school, social interactions) [55].

In addition, abusers often suffer from low self-esteem and their sense of self and identity is directly connected to their partner [55]. Extreme dependence is common in both abusers and those being abused. Due to low self-esteem and self-worth, emotional dependence often occurs in both partners, but even more so in the abuser. Emotional dependence in the victim stems from both physical and psychologic abuse, which results in a negative self-image and lack of self-worth. Financial dependence is also very common, as the abuser often withholds or controls financial resources to maintain power over the victim [1,4].

6. SCREENING FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

Evidence Based Practice Recommendation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends that that clinicians screen for intimate partner violence (IPV) in women of reproductive age, including those who are pregnant and postpartum.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835641

Last Accessed: July 24, 2026

Strength of Recommendation: B (There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial.)

There is no universal guideline for identifying and responding to domestic violence, but it is universally accepted that a plan for screening, assessing, and referring patients of suspected abuse should be in place at every healthcare facility. Guidelines should review appropriate interview techniques for a given setting and should also include the utilization of assessment tools. Furthermore, protocols within each facility or healthcare setting should include referral, documentation, and follow-up. This section relies heavily on the guidelines outlined in the Family Violence Prevention Fund's National Consensus Guidelines on Identifying and Responding to Domestic Violence Victimization in Health Care Settings; however, protocols should be customized based on individual practice settings and resources available [39]. The Center for Justice Innovation has provided a compilation of commonly used IPV risk assessment tools and models for the interprofessional team to assist in determining the most appropriate assessment, available at https://dvrisc.org/domestic-violence-homicide-prevention-tools-strategies-assessments [56].

Several barriers to screening for domestic violence have been noted, including a lack of knowledge and training, time constraints, lack of privacy for asking appropriate questions, and the sensitive nature of the subject [39]. Although awareness and assessment for IPV has increased among healthcare providers, many are still hesitant to inquire about abuse [57]. At a minimum, those exhibiting signs of domestic violence should be screened. Although victims of IPV may not display typical signs and symptoms when they present to healthcare providers, there are certain cues that may be attributed to abuse. The obvious cues are physical. Injuries range from bruises, cuts, black eyes, concussions, broken bones, and miscarriages to permanent injuries such as damage to joints, partial loss of hearing or vision, and scars from burns, bites, or knife wounds. Typical injury patterns include contusions or minor lacerations to the head, face, neck, breast, or abdomen, and musculoskeletal injuries. These are often distinguishable from accidental injuries, which are more likely to involve the extremities of the body. Abuse victims are also more likely to have multiple injuries than accident victims. When this pattern of injuries is seen, particularly in combination with evidence of old injury, physical abuse should be suspected [54].

In addition to physical signs and symptoms, domestic violence victims also exhibit psychologic cues that resemble an agitated depression. As a result of prolonged stress, various psychosomatic symptoms that generally lack an organic basis often manifest. For example, complaints of backaches, headaches, and digestive problems are common. Often, there are reports of fatigue, restlessness, insomnia, or loss of appetite. Great amounts of anxiety, guilt, and depression or dysphoria are also typical. Women who experienced IPV are also more likely to report asthma, irritable bowel syndrome, and diabetes [4]. Healthcare professionals should look beyond the typical symptoms of a domestic violence victim and work within their respective practice settings to develop appropriate assessment mechanisms to detect victims who exhibit less obvious symptoms.

The unique relationship dynamics of the abuser and abused are not easily detected under the best of circumstances. They may be especially difficult to uncover in circumstances in which the parties are suspicious and frightened, as might be expected when a victim presents to the emergency department. The key to detection, however, is to establish a proper assessment tool that can be utilized in the particular setting and to maintain a keen awareness for the cues described in this course. Screening for IPV should be carried out at the entry points of contact between victims and medical care (e.g., primary care, emergency services, obstetric and gynecologic services, psychiatric services, and pediatric care) [39].

The key to an initial assessment is to obtain an adequate history. Establishing that a patient's injuries are secondary to abuse is the first task. Clearly, there will be times when a victim is injured so severely that treatment of these injuries becomes the first priority. After such treatment is rendered, however, it is important that healthcare professionals not ignore the reasons that brought the victim to the emergency department [39].

7. ASSESSING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

Healthcare providers have reported that even if routine screening and inquiry results in a positive identification of IPV, the next steps of assessing and referring are often difficult, and many feel that they are not adequately prepared [57]. According to the Family Violence Prevention Fund, the goals of the assessment are to create a supportive environment, gather information about health problems associated with the abuse, and assess the immediate and long-term health and safety needs for the patient to develop an intervention [39].

Assessment of domestic violence victims should occur immediately after disclosure of abuse and at any follow-up appointments. Assessing immediate safety is priority. Having a list of questions readily available and well-practiced can help alleviate the uncertainty of how to begin the assessment (Table 1). If the patient is in immediate danger, referral to an advocate, support system, hotline, or shelter is indicated [39].

Table 1: ASSESSMENT OF IMMEDIATE SAFETY FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

Are you in immediate danger?

Is your partner at the health facility now?

Do you want to (or have to) go home with your partner?

Do you have somewhere safe to go?

Have there been threats or direct abuse of the child(ren) (if applicable)?

Are you afraid your life may be in danger?

Has the violence gotten worse or is it getting scarier? Is it happening more often?

Has your partner used weapons, alcohol, or drugs?

Has your partner ever held you or your child(ren) against your will?

Does your partner ever watch you closely, follow you or stalk you?

Has your partner ever threatened to kill you, him/herself or your child(ren)?

Source: [39]

If the patient is not in immediate danger, the assessment may continue with a focus on the impact of IPV on the patient's mental and physical health and the pattern of history and current abuse [39]. These responses will help formulate an appropriate intervention.

CULTURALLY SENSITIVE ASSESSMENT

During the assessment process, a practitioner should be open and sensitive to the patient's worldview, cultural belief systems and how he/she views the illness [58]. This may reduce the tendency to over-pathologize or minimize health concerns of ethnic minority patients.

Pachter proposed a dynamic model that involves several tiers and transactions [59]. The first component of Pachter's model calls for the practitioner to take responsibility for cultural awareness and knowledge. The professional should be willing to acknowledge that he/she does not possess enough or adequate knowledge in health beliefs and practices among the different ethnic and cultural groups he/she comes in contact with. Reading and becoming familiar with medical anthropology is a good first step.

The second component emphasizes the need for specifically tailored assessment [59]. Pachter advocates the notion that there is tremendous diversity within groups. For example, one cannot automatically assume that a Cuban immigrant adheres to traditional beliefs. Often, there are many variables, such as level of acculturation, age at immigration, educational level, and socioeconomic status, that influence health ideologies. Finally, the third component involves a negotiation process between the patient and the professional [59]. The negotiation consists of a dialogue that involves a genuine respect of beliefs. It is important to remember that these beliefs may affect symptoms or appropriate interventions in the case of domestic violence.

Culturally sensitive assessment involves a dynamic framework whereby the practitioner engages in a continual process of questioning. By incorporating cultural sensitivity into the assessment of individuals with a history of being victims or perpetrators of domestic violence, it may be possible to intervene and offer treatment more effectively.

8. INTERVENTIONS FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE

After the assessment is complete, the patient may or may not want immediate assistance or referral. It is important for healthcare providers to assure patients in a nonjudgmental manner that the decision of what they would like in terms of assistance is their choice and that the provider will help regardless of the decisions they are currently ready to make [39].

If the patient would like to immediately implement a plan of action, information for referral to a local domestic violence shelter to assist the victim and the victim's family should be readily available. The acute situation should be referred immediately to local law enforcement officials. Other resources in an acute situation include crisis hotlines and rape relief centers. After a victim is introduced into the system, counseling and follow-up are generally available by individual counselors who specialize in the care of battered women and their spouses and children. These may include social workers, psychologists, psychiatrists, other mental health workers, and community mental health services. The goals are to make the resources accessible and safe and to enhance support for those who are unsure of their options [39].

In Florida, a 24-hour domestic violence hotline is available for toll-free counseling and information. The number is 800-500-1119. The counselors answering the toll-free line may refer the victim to her or his local domestic violence center. A list of Florida certified domestic violence centers organized by county may also be found on the Florida Department of Children and Families website at https://www.myflfamilies.com/services/abuse/domestic-violence/find-your-local-domestic-violence-center. Florida's domestic violence centers provide information and referral services, counseling and case management services, a 24-hour hotline, temporary emergency shelter for more than 24 hours, educational services for community awareness relative to domestic violence, assessment and appropriate referral of resident children, and training for law enforcement personnel.

9. DOCUMENTATION AND FOLLOW-UP

It is imperative that healthcare professionals document all findings and recommendations regarding domestic violence in the victim's medical record, including a patient's denial of abuse, if applicable. If domestic violence is disclosed, documentation should include relevant history, results of the physical examination, findings of laboratory and other diagnostic procedures, and results of the assessment, intervention, and referral. The medical record can be an invaluable document in establishing the credibility of the victim's story when seeking legal aid [39].

Healthcare professionals should offer a follow-up appointment if disclosure of past or current abuse is present. Reassurance that assistance is available to the patient at any time is critical in helping to break the cycle of abuse [39].

Works Cited

1. 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. About Intimate Partner Violence. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

2. Florida Department of Children and Families. What Is Domestic Violence? Available at https://www.myflfamilies.com/services/abuse/domestic-violence/get-help/what-domestic-violence. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

3. Florida Statutes. Section 741.28 (2018): Domestic Violence; Definitions. Available at http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/Sections/0741.28.html. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

4. Zhang Kudon H, Zhu S, Chen B, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2023/2024 Intimate Partner Violence Data Brief. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control; 2026.

5. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Reporting Program. Domestic Relationships and Violent Crimes, 2020–2024. Available at https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/resources/reports/Domestic%20Relationships%20and%20Violent%20Crimes%202020-2024.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

6. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Uniform Crime Reports: Annual State Summary Crime Data Reports. Available at https://www.fdle.state.fl.us/cjab/ucr/annual-reports. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

7. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003.

8. Peterson C, Kearns MC, McIntosh WL, et al. Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 2018;55(4):433-444.

9. Catalano S. Intimate Partner Violence: Attributes of Victimization, 1993–2011. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice; 2013.

10. National Institute of Justice. The decline of intimate partner homicide. National Institute of Justice Journal. 2005;252.

11. Farmer A, Tiefenthaler J. Explaining the recent decline in domestic violence. Contemp Econ Policy. 2003;21(s):158-172.

12. National Domestic Violence Hotline. Increased Financial Stress Affects Domestic Violence Victims. Available at https://www.thehotline.org/2009/01/30/increased-financial-stress-affects-domestic-violence-victims-2. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

13. Council on Criminal Justice. Impact Report: COVID-19 and Domestic Violence Trends. Available at https://counciloncj.org/impact-report-covid-19-and-domestic-violence-trends. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

14. 1995 Florida Session Law Service Chapter 95-187, Domestic Violence, General Provisions.

15. Florida Governor's Task Force on Domestic and Sexual Violence. Florida Mortality Review Project. Jacksonville, FL: Office of the Governor; 1997.

16. U.S. Department of Justice. Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team: June 2001 Annual Report, Executive Summary. Available at https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/domestic-violence-fatality-review-team-june-2001-annual-report. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

17. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Florida Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team Annual Report, 2002. Available at https://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/domestic-violence/docs/FatalityReview2002.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

18. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. Florida Domestic Violence Fatality Review Team 2008 Annual Report: Executive Summary. Available at https://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/domestic-violence/docs/FatalityReview2008.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

19. Florida Department of Children and Families. Violence Free Florida! Ending Abuse—Improving Lives. Available at https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/51477225/ending-abuse-improving-lives-florida-department-of-children-. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

20. Florida Coalition against Domestic Violence. Domestic Violence in Florida: 2010–2011 Annual Report to the Legislature. Available at https://www.myflfamilies.com/service-programs/domestic-violence/docs/DVAnnualReport1112.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

21. Florida Department of Children and Families. Domestic Violence Annual Report. Available at https://www.myflfamilies.com/documents/66341.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

22. Chavez S, Ugalde I, Ulrich M, Adepoju O, Xu T, Liaw W. U.S. emergency department visits by women due to assault (2018–2021): a retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2026;54:101343.

23. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Committee Opinion 518: Intimate Partner Violence (Reaffirmed 2025). Available at https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-opinion/articles/2012/02/intimate-partner-violence. Last accessed June 7, 2022.

24. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Violence and Pregnancy. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/violence-and-pregnancy.html. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

25. James L, Brody D, Hamilton Z. Risk factors for domestic violence during pregnancy: a meta-analytic review. Violence Vict. 2013;28(3): 359-380.

26. Cook J, Bewley S. Acknowledging a persistent truth: domestic violence in pregnancy. J R Soc Med. 2008;101:358-363.

27. Newberger EH, Barkan SE, Lieberman ES, et al. Abuse of pregnant women and adverse birth outcome: current knowledge and implications for practice. JAMA. 1992;267(17):2370-2372.

28. Crane CA, Hawes SW, Weinberger AH. Intimate partner violence victimization and cigarette smoking: a meta-analytic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2013;14(4):305-315.

29. U.S. Department of Justice. Report of the Attorney General's National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. Available at https://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/cev-rpt-full.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

30. Hamby S, Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R. Children's Exposure to Intimate Partner Violence and Other Family Violence. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2011.

31. Child Welfare Information Gateway. Child Witnesses to Domestic Violence—Florida. Available at https://www.childwelfare.gov/resources/child-witnesses-domestic-violence. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

32. Kitzman KM, Gaylord NK, Holt AR, Kenny ED. Child witnesses to domestic violence: a meta-analytic review. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003;71(2):339-352.

33. Yount KM, DiGirolamo AM, Ramakrishnan U. Impacts of domestic violence on child growth and nutrition: a conceptual review of the pathways of influence. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(9):1534-1554.

34. Schiff M, Plotnikova M, Dingle K, Williams GM, Najman J, Clavarino A. Does adolescent's exposure to parental intimate partner conflict and violence predict psychological distress and substance use in young adulthood? A longitudinal study. Child Abuse Neglect. 2014;38(12):1945-1954.

35. Finkelhor D, Turner H, Ormrod R, Hamby S, Kracke K. Children's Exposure to Violence: A Comprehensive National Survey. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; 2009.

36. Narayan AJ, Englund MM, Carlson EA, Egeland B. Adolescent conflict as a developmental process in the prospective pathway from exposure to interparental violence to dating violence. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2014;42(2):239-250.

37. Ellonen N, Piispa M, Peltonen K, Oranen M. Exposure to parental violence and outcomes of child psychosocial adjustment. Violence Vict. 2013;28(1):3-15.

38. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia Center for Violence Prevention. Domestic Violence and Child Abuse. Available at https://violence.chop.edu/domestic-violence-and-child-abuse. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

39. Family Violence Prevention Fund. National Consensus Guidelines on Identifying and Responding to Domestic Violence Victimization in Health Care Settings. San Francisco, CA: Family Violence Prevention Fund; 2007.

40. Bush AM. A multi-state examination of the victims of fatal adolescent intimate partner violence, 2011-2015. J Inj Violence Res. 2020;12(1):73-83.

41. Sardinha L, Yüksel-Kaptanoğlu I, Maheu-Giroux M et al. Intimate partner violence against adolescent girls: regional and national prevalence estimates and associated country-level factors. Lancet Child Adol Health. 2024; 8, 636-646

42. Adhia A, Kernic MA, Hemenway D, Vavilala MS, Rivara FP. Intimate partner homicide of adolescents. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(6): 571-577.

43. Stöckl H, March L, Pallitto C, et al. Intimate partner violence among adolescents and young women: prevalence and associated factors in nine countries: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(751):1-14.

44. Acierno R, Hernandez MA, Amstadter AB, et al. Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential neglect in the United States: the National Elder Mistreatment Study. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(2):292-297.

45. Yon Y, Mikton CR, Gassoumis ZD, Wilber KH. Elder abuse prevalence in community settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Global Health. 2017;5(2):e147-e156.

46. National Council on Aging. Get the Facts on Elder Abuse. Available at https://www.ncoa.org/article/get-the-facts-on-elder-abuse. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

47. Yon Y, Ramiro-Gonzalez M, Mikton CR, et al. The prevalence of elder abuse in institutional settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2019;29(1):58-67.

48. Schiamberg LB, Oehmke J, Zhang Z, et al. Physical abuse of older adults in nursing homes: a random sample survey of adults with an elderly family member in a nursing home. J Elder Abuse Negl. 2012;24(1):65-83.

49. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence, and Stalking Among Men. Available at https://www.cdc.gov/intimate-partner-violence/about/intimate-partner-violence-sexual-violence-and-stalking-among-men.html. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

50. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Female Murder Victims and Victim–Offender Relationship, 2021. Available at https://bjs.ojp.gov/female-murder-victims-and-victim-offender-relationship-2021. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

51. Ard KL, Makadon HJ. Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26(8):930-933.

52. National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and HIV-Affected Intimate Partner Violence in 2015. Available at http://avp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/NCAVP-HV-IPV-2017-report.pdf. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

53. Calton JM, Cattaneo LB, Gebhard KT. Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(5):585-600.

54. Bhandari M, Dosanjh S, Tornetta P 3rd, Matthews D, Violence Against Women Health Research Collaborative. Musculoskeletal manifestations of physical abuse after intimate partner violence. J Trauma. 2006;61(6):1473-1479.

55. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse. 2012;3(2):231-280.

56. Center for Justice Innovation. Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessments and Models. Available at https://dvrisc.org/domestic-violence-homicide-prevention-tools-strategies-assessments. Last accessed July 15, 2026.

57. Sprague S, Madden K, Simunovic N, et al. Barriers to screening for intimate partner violence. Women Health. 2012;52(6):587-605.

58. Panos PT, Panos AJ. A model for a culture-sensitive assessment of patients in health care settings. Soc Work Health Care. 2000;31(1): 49-62.

59. Pachter LM. Culture and clinical care: folk illness beliefs and behaviors and their implications for health care delivery. JAMA. 1994;271(9):690-695.

Evidence-Based Practice Recommendations Citations

1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Silverstein M, Wong JB, et al. Screening for intimate partner violence and caregiver abuse of older or vulnerable adults: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2025;334(4):329-338. Available at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835641. Last accessed July 24, 2026.