Expert Panel Issues Recommendations for VA to Address Intimate Partner Violence

A new evidence-focused report is reshaping how the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) approaches intimate partner violence (IPV) in clinical settings, translating findings from more than a century of research into actionable guidance. Prompted by the spirit of expanded access to VA-supported care for women veterans, the study addresses a persistent public health problem: IPV’s presence in veterans’ health outcomes and the difficulty of identifying it reliably.

The work was produced through a multidisciplinary virtual panel convened by VA leadership and led by Susanne Hempel, PhD, of the Keck School of Medicine of USC and the Southern California Evidence Review Center. Using an evidence-informed synthesis of findings drawn from over 100 studies—including multiple systematic reviews—the panel aimed to clarify what is known, what remains uncertain, and what clinicians and policymakers should prioritize.

Rather than treating IPV as synonymous with only physical or sexual assault, the panel emphasized broader definitions that include stalking and other coercive behaviors. Hempel noted that psychological tactics—often subtle, persistent, and difficult to detect—may be as damaging as overt violence, yet remain underrecognized in routine care.

Quantifying IPV prevalence in veterans remains challenging due to inconsistent sampling across studies and limited subgroup data. Still, the panel highlighted veteran-specific risk contexts, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), elevated suicide rates, and prolonged separation from partners caused by deployment. These factors suggest that IPV risk may interact with mental health vulnerabilities in ways that standard screening can miss.

The panel found that VA’s existing National IPV Assistance Program aligns with patient-centered, trauma-informed principles and should be retained as a foundation. At the same time, they argued that success depends on embedding screening and response pathways across the entire care system.

Central to the recommendations is a “no wrong door” strategy: any clinical encounter—whether for physical therapy, routine blood draws, or unrelated complaints—should provide opportunities to identify risk and connect patients to support. The panel also called for training healthcare staff to recognize disclosure patterns and to respond consistently.

Because firearm access and suicide risk frequently co-occur in veteran populations, the panel recommended safety planning alongside targeted IPV screening for patients reporting suicidality, PTSD, substance use, or sleep problems. The message was clear: risk assessment cannot be delayed until a patient reaches mental health services.

The report was published in Women’s Health Issues and delivered to senior VA leaders. Co-authors include Aneesa Motala (USC), Adriana Rodriguez (VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System), and Katherine Iverson (Boston University and VA Boston Healthcare System). Funding came from the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs and VA research networks.