Skip to main content

Table 6 Final multiple logistic regression model of self-reported mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence compliance with and without consent from the victim or perpetrator of intimate partner violence

From: Compliance with mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence among professionals in Norway

Item

Compliance w/o consent*

Compliance w/ consent†

OR

Sig

CI

OR

Sig

CI

County of workplace

1.000

.565

.999 – 1.002

   

Experience with IPV

  IPV victim – career

1.056

.256

962 – 1.159

1.025

.632

.926 – 1.135

  IPV victim – 12 months

   

1.135

.229

.924 – 1.394

  IPV perpetrator – 12 months

.938

.584

.741 – 1.184

   

  Severe physical injury victim – 12 months

   

.784

.094

.589 – 1.042

Expectations about MR-IPV

  The incident would have been reviewed at the workplace

.772

.434

.404 – 1.476

   

  There is a high probability that it would have had positive consequences for the patient/client/user

   

1.459

.219

.799 – 2.668

  It would have had few consequences for my patient/client/user

.860

.517

.546 – 1.356

   

  The MR-IPV case would have made it more difficult to work afterwards

.615

.167

.308 – 1.226

.973

.931

.527 – 1.798

  The MR-IPV case would have few consequences for me personally

   

.779

.227

.520 – 1.168

  I would have received good and adequate support from the leaders at my workplace

.493

.175

.178 – 1.368

   

  I would have received good and adequate support from colleagues

.494

.187

.173 – 1.408

   

  I would have been confident that what I did was right

1.396

.302

.741 – 2.630

1.228

.486

.689 – 2.185

Perceived applicability of MR-IPV

  Victim

1.407

.043

1.011 -1.959

1.989

<.001

1.408 – 2.811

  Perpetrator

1.617

.015

1.097 – 2.385

   

Knowledge of MR-IPV

  Knowledge of MR

   

1.227

.620

.546 – 2.755

  Knowledge of MR in their field

1.464

.221

.795 – 2.696

1.719

.144

.831 – 3.556

  Knowledge of criteria

1.694

.107

.892 – 3.219

1.518

.197

.805 – 2.861

Perceptions of MR-IPV compliance

  Compliance in general

   

3.379

<.001

1.704 – 6.703

  Compliance by colleagues

1.924

.070

.947 – 3.909

   

Experience with risk assessment tools

  Structural risk assessment

1.205

.114

.956 – 1.517

1.118

.312

.901 – 1.388

Perceptions of workplace time management

  Time with patients etc.

.904

.114

.956 – 1.517

.807

.024

.669 - 973

  1. *N  = 261
  2. †N = 270