ArticleRisk management and healthcare policy2025
Navigating Ethical and Legal Tensions in Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: Insights from Norwegian Assault Centers.
Article in Risk management and healthcare policy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine how health-care professionals in assault centers in Norway navigate biomedical ethical principles, health-care legislation, and the mandatory reporting law when working with victims of intimate partner violence (IPV). The study was guided by the following research questions: How do health-care professionals in assault centers apply the law for mandatory reporting of IPV (MR-IPV)? How do they navigate various factors when they consider applying the MR-IPV law?. Methods: This qualitative, explorative study is built on 12 individual, semi-structured interviews with nurses and medical doctors working at assault centers. The data were analyzed using Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis, with themes developed based on biomedical ethical principles, including relational autonomy. Results: Two main themes were found. First, MR-IPV was perceived as subsequent but parallel to emergency medical treatment. Some participants used risk assessment tools, and they all emphasized the importance of making patients safe following medical treatment. However, only a few acknowledged that their duty to respect the MR-IPV law was a factor in prioritizing patient safety. Second, ethical principles and health-care legislation were recognized more than the MR-IPV law, which created dilemmas for nurses and medical doctors. These actors faced challenges in navigating patients' autonomy and beneficence in relation to the MR-IPV legislation. Conflicts between patient autonomy and beneficence can lead to paternalistic behavior, which creates ethical dilemmas. Conclusion: The findings show tensions between medical practices and legal and ethical standards, which contributed to hesitation in reporting severe IPV cases to the police. Health-care professionals prioritized therapeutic relationships and patient confidentiality, sometimes at the expense of their responsibilities concerning the MR-IPV law. Addressing these challenges requires enhancing legal literacy and fostering a cultural shift in health care to align professional autonomy with legal requirements and institutional responsibilities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.