A cross-sectional examination of core functions and adaptable forms in co-located service models for intimate partner...

BackgroundGlobally, intimate partner violence and sexual violence (IPV/SV) are prevalent among women and can lead to numerous and overlapping service needs. Co-located service models for IPV/SV aim to reduce burden on survivors and increase timely engagement in services by streamlining access to immediate and longer-term support. These models involve multiple cross-disciplinary partners and require a high level of tailoring and adaptation to the local and agency context. Consequently, fidelity measurement approaches need to be adaptive.ObjectivesThis study redefines co-located IPV/SV centers (e.g., Family Justice Centers) as complex health interventions and applies the form and function matrix advanced within the field of implementation science.DesignThe current study uses cross-sectional data collected as part of a larger formative evaluation testing protocols for an implementation study and outcome evaluation.MethodsA researcher-developed adaptive fidelity survey was administered to agency leaders from six co-located IPV/SV centers to determine the core functions and adaptable forms of co-located service models along with the necessary infrastructural support. Univariate statistics and a descriptive content analysis approach were used to analyze the survey data.ResultsSurvey findings showed that there are core services, partners, infrastructure, and processes that many or most respondents believed to be essential to the functioning of the co-located center. However, respondents also believed that implementation of these elements could vary without diminishing the effectiveness of the model.ConclusionsFindings highlight that there are many ways to accomplish the same function, which underscores the need for a flexible and adaptive measurement approach to capturing fidelity in function and variation in form. This study adds to the research on limitations of fidelity assessment for complex health interventions and suggests focusing on the hypothesized relationships between structural elements of the model and intermediary outcomes.