Original Article Implementing Trauma-Informed Partner Violence Assessment in Family Planning Clinics Michele R. Decker, ScD, MPH, 1,2 Sarah Flessa, MHS, 3 Ruchita V. Pillai, MHS, 4 Rebecca N. Dick, MS, 5 Jamie Quam, MSPH, 1 Diana Cheng, MD, 6 Raegan McDonald-Mosley, MD, MPH, 7 Kamila A. Alexander, PhD, MPH, RN, 8 Charvonne N. Holliday, PhD, MPH, 1 and Elizabeth Miller, MD, PhD 5 Abstract Objective: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and reproductive coercion (RC) are associated with poor repro- ductive health. Little is known about how family planning clinics implement brief IPV/RC assessment inter- ventions in practice. We describe the uptake and impact of a brief, trauma-informed, universal IPV/RC assessment and education intervention. Methods: Intervention implementation was evaluated via a mixed methods study among women ages 18 and up receiving care at one of two family planning clinics in greater Baltimore, MD. This mixed methods study entailed a quasi-experimental, single group pretest-posttest study with family planning clinic patients (baseline and exit survey n = 132; 3-month retention n = 68; retention rate = 52%), coupled with qualitative interviews with providers and patients (total n = 35). Results: Two thirds (65%) of women reported receiving at least one element of the intervention on their exit survey immediately following the clinic-visit. Patients reported that clinic-based IPV assessment is helpful, irrespective of IPV history. Relative to those who reported neither, participants who received either intervention element reported greater perceived caring from providers, confidence in provider response to abusive rela- tionships, and knowledge of IPV-related resources at follow-up. Providers and patients alike described the educational card as a valuable tool. Participants described trade-offs of paper versus in-person, electronic medical record-facilitated screening, and patient reluctance to disclose current situations of abuse. Conclusion: In real-world family planning clinic settings, a brief assessment and support intervention was successful in communicating provider caring and increasing knowledge of violence-related resources, endpoints previously deemed valuable by IPV survivors. Results emphasize the merit of universal education in IPV/RC clinical interventions over seeking IPV disclosure. Keywords: intimate partner violence, screening, reproductive coercion, clinical intervention, implementation science, trauma-informed care Introduction I ntimate partner violence (IPV) affects an estimated one in three women in the United States, with significant implications for morbidity and mortality. 1–5 IPV impedes use of condoms and other forms of contraception, and increases risk for poor sexual and reproductive health, including un- intended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infection. 4,6–8 In part, these patterns reflect compromised decision-making regarding, or limited ability to enact, contraceptive use 9,10 with partners sabotaging contraception and pressuring them to become pregnant, that is, reproductive coercion (RC). 11–14 Domestically and globally, the state of the science on IPV- related prevention and intervention is rapidly advancing. 15,16 The health sector continues to serve a critical role in the response to violence 17 given both the prevalence and health Departments of 1 Population, Family and Reproductive Health, 2 Women’s Health & Rights Program, Center for Public Health and Human Rights, 3 Epidemiology, and 4 Health, Behavior, and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland. 5 Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine and Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh of UPMC, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 6 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Baltimore, Maryland. 7 Planned Parenthood of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland. 8 Department of Community Public Health Nursing, John Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland. JOURNAL OF WOMEN’S HEALTH Volume 00, Number 00, 2017 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2016.6093 1