Longitudinal Analysis of Persistent Postconcussion Symptoms, Probable TBI, and Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Veterans

Intimate partner violence perpetration among veterans: associations with neuropsychiatric symptoms and limbic microstructure

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration is highly prevalent among veterans. Suggested risk factors of IPV perpetration include combat exposure, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, alcohol use, and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). While the underlying brain pathophysiological characteristics associated with IPV perpetration remain largely unknown, previous studies have linked aggression and violence to alterations of the limbic system. Here, we investigate whether IPV perpetration is associated with limbic microstructural abnormalities in military veterans. Further, we test the effect of potential risk factors (i.e., PTSD, depression, substance use disorder, mTBI, and war zone-related stress) on the prevalence of IPV perpetration.

Methods

Structural and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) data were acquired from 49 male veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom; OEF/OIF) of the Translational Research Center for TBI and Stress Disorders (TRACTS) study. IPV perpetration was assessed using the psychological aggression and physical assault sub-scales of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2). Odds ratios were calculated to assess the likelihood of IPV perpetration in veterans with either of the following diagnoses: PTSD, depression, substance use disorder, or mTBI. Fractional anisotropy tissue (FA) measures were calculated for limbic gray matter structures (amygdala-hippocampus complex, cingulate, parahippocampal gyrus, entorhinal cortex). Partial correlations were calculated between IPV perpetration, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and FA.

Results

Veterans with a diagnosis of PTSD, depression, substance use disorder, or mTBI had higher odds of perpetrating IPV. Greater war zone-related stress, and symptom severity of PTSD, depression, and mTBI were significantly associated with IPV perpetration. CTS2 (psychological aggression), a measure of IPV perpetration, was associated with higher FA in the right amygdala-hippocampus complex (r = 0.400, p = 0.005).

Conclusion

Veterans with psychiatric disorders and/or mTBI exhibit higher odds of engaging in IPV perpetration. Further, the more severe the symptoms of PTSD, depression, or TBI, and the greater the war zone-related stress, the greater the frequency of IPV perpetration. Moreover, we report a significant association between psychological aggression against an intimate partner and microstructural alterations in the right amygdala-hippocampus complex. These findings suggest the possibility of a structural brain correlate underlying IPV perpetration that requires further research.

Intimate Partner Violence-Related Brain Injury: Unmasking and Addressing the Gaps

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant, global public health concern. Women, individuals with historically underrepresented identities, and disabilities are at high risk for IPV and tend to experience severe injuries. There has been growing concern about the risk of exposure to IPV-related head trauma, resulting in IPV-related brain injury (IPV-BI), and its health consequences. Past work suggests that a significant proportion of women exposed to IPV experience IPV-BI, likely representing a distinct phenotype compared with BI of other etiologies. An IPV-BI often co-occurs with psychological trauma and mental health complaints, leading to unique issues related to identifying, prognosticating, and managing IPV-BI outcomes. The goal of this review is to identify important gaps in research and clinical practice in IPV-BI and suggest potential solutions to address them. We summarize IPV research in five key priority areas: (1) unique considerations for IPV-BI study design; (2) understanding non-fatal strangulation as a form of BI; (3) identifying objective biomarkers of IPV-BI; (4) consideration of the chronicity, cumulative and late effects of IPV-BI; and (5) BI as a risk factor for IPV engagement. Our review concludes with a call to action to help investigators develop ecologically valid research studies addressing the identified clinical-research knowledge gaps and strategies to improve care in individuals exposed to IPV-BI. By reducing the current gaps and answering these calls to action, we will approach IPV-BI in a trauma-informed manner, ultimately improving outcomes and quality of life for those impacted by IPV-BI.

Understanding Veterans' intimate partner violence use and patterns of healthcare utilization

OBJECTIVE

To understand the association between Veterans' healthcare utilization and intimate partner violence (IPV) use (i.e., perpetration) in order to (1) identify conditions comorbid with IPV use and (2) inform clinical settings to target for IPV use screening, intervention, and provider training.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

We examined survey data from a national sample of 834 Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn (OEF/OIF/OND) Veterans.

STUDY DESIGN

We assessed associations between past-year IPV use and medical treatment, health issues, and use of Veterans Health Administration (VA) and non-VA services using chi-square tests and logistic regression.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

Data were derived from the Department of Defense OEF/OIF/OND Roster. Surveys were sent to all women Veterans and a random sample of men from participating study sites.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Half (49%) of the Veterans who reported utilizing VA healthcare in the past year indicated using IPV. Q values using a 5% false discovery rate indicated that Veterans who used IPV were more likely than Veterans who did not use IPV to have received treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; 39% vs. 27%), chronic sleep problems (36% vs. 26%), anxiety or depression (44% vs. 36%), severe chronic pain (31% vs. 22%), and stomach or digestive disorders (24% vs. 16%). Veterans who used IPV were also more likely than Veterans who did not use IPV to have received medical treatment in the past year (86% vs. 80%), seen psychiatrists outside VA (39% vs. 20%), and have outpatient healthcare outside VA (49% vs. 41%). IPV use was not related to whether Veterans received care from VA or non-VA providers.

CONCLUSIONS

Veterans' IPV use was related to greater utilization of services for mental health, chronic pain, and digestive issues. Future research should examine whether these are risk factors or consequences of IPV use.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Experience and Use in the Veterans Health Administration

Importance

The practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well.

Objective

To determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023.

Exposure

Mental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Outcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients.

Results

A total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, -7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, -7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for IPV.

Brain Injury and Intimate Partner Violence

The aim of this topical issue on Brain Injury (BI) and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is to address a long neglected gap in research, education and practice in both the IPV and BI literature. The need for practitioners, decision-policy makers and affected women to be aware of the co-occurrence of IPV and BI has only increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. BI in this issue includes traumatic brain injury and also potential hypoxic ischemic brain injuries from strangulation assaults. This novel issue includes a broad range of contributions led by authors from the US, Canada and Australia using a variety of methodologies. Topics covered improve our understanding characteristics and outcomes of non-fatal strangulation and neurobehavioral symptoms in both survivors and perpetrators. New data on neuroimaging correlates of IPV related BI is presented as well as prevalence of IPV and BI in diverse contexts. This collection also addresses the impact of IPV in both service users and providers during the COVID-19 pandemic and reports on an emergency summit from a diverse set of stakeholders from a national IPV-TBI knowledge the practice network. Further, this issue highlights the impact of a promising health advocacy intervention that offers tools that can be downloaded and provides information about a newly formed Partner Inflicted Task Force. We are optimistic that the papers in this issue will further the field and prepare the way for additional research that will expand knowledge of IPV-related BI to other understudied groups yet to be examined.