Table 2 Univariate logistic regression analyses of participants’ self-reported compliance with and without consent from the victim or perpetrator of IPV

Compliance w/o consent*

Compliance w/ consent†

Item

OR

Sig.

CI

OR

Sig.

CI

Experience with IPV

  IPV victim – career

1.193

<.001

1.130 – 1.259

1.162

<.001

1.102 – 1.227

  IPV victim – 12 months

1.235

<.001

1.131 – 1.349

1.262

<.001

1.145 – 1.391

  IPV perpetrator – career

1.101

.001

1.038 – 1.167

1.080

.011

1.018 – 1.147

  IPV perpetrator – 12 months

1.095

.191

.956 – 1.254

1.037

.618

.899 – 1.196

  Severe IPV victim – career

1.242

<.001

1.151 – 1.339

1.182

<.001

1.098 – 1.272

  Severe IPV victim – 12 months

1.464

<.001

1.215 – 1.764

1.408

<.001

1.165 – 1.703

  Severe IPV perpetrator – career

1.146

.002

1.054 – 1.247

1.068

.109

.985 – 1.158

  Severe IPV perpetrator – 12 months

1.260

.053

.997 – 1.593

1.048

.685

.837 – 1.312

  Severe physical injury victim – career

1.239

<.001

1.126 – 1.364

1.126

.006

1.034 – 1.225

  Severe physical injury victim – 12 months

1.407

.004

1.112 – 1.780

1.149

.169

.943 – 1.401

  Severe physical injury perpetrator - career

1.177

.003

1.057 – 1.309

1.081

.121

.979 – 1.194

Expectations about MR-IPV

  The incident would have been reviewed at the workplace

.683

.072

.451 – 1.034

.885

.558

.588 – 1.332

  I would have been reproached by the patient/client/user/relatives afterwards

.797

.332

.505 – 1.259

.575

.024

.356 - .929

  The patient/client/user would have less trust in me

.913

.671

.603 – 1.384

.599

.021

.388 - .925

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

1.566

.036

1.029 – 2.382

2.29

<.001

1.484 – 3.542

Compliance w/o consent 

Compliance w/ consent 

Item

OR

Sig.

CI

OR

Sig.

CI

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

.929

.726

.619 – 1.396

.710

.109

.468 – 1.079

  All in all, the patient/client/user would have been better off

1.239

.274

.833 – 1.902

1.594

.031

1.044 – 2.434

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

.812

.229

.579 – 1.139

1.011

.952

.717 – 1.424

  I am very unsure what consequences it would have had for my patient/client/user

.801

.146

.594 – 1.079

.764

.085

.563 – 1.038

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

.473

.001

.306 - .732

.491

.001

.318 - .757

  The MR-IPV case would have had a negative impact on my private life

.648

.066

.407 – 1.029

.517

.006

.323 - .827

  The MR-IPV case would have made me a more secure professional

1.057

.766

.732 – 1.528

1.315

.152

.904 – 1.911

  The MR-IPV case had made me a more fearful professional

1.055

.802

.696 – 1.598

.607

.020

.398 - .924

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

.855

.273

.647 – 1.131

.791

.106

.596 – 1.051

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

.632

.057

.394 – 1.014

.901

.675

.567 – 1.429

  I would have received good and adequate support from colleagues

.596

.060

.348 – 1.022

.849

.536

.506 – 1.426

  I would have been confident that what I did was right

1.963

.002

1.288 – 2.992

2.267

<.001

1.481 – 3.469

Perceived applicability of MR-IPV

  Victim

2.122

<.001

1.689 – 2.667

2.431

<.001

1.849 – 3.194

vPerpetrator

1.809

<.001

1.412 – 2.319

1.663

<.001

1.299 – 2.127

Knowledge of MR-IPV

  Knowledge of MR-IPV

2.538

<.001

1.725 – 3.733

3.128

<.001

2.073 – 4.719

  Knowledge of MR-IPV in field

2.884

<.001

1.979 – 4.202

2.961

<.001

2.025 – 4.329

  Knowledge of criteria

3.355

<.001

2.277 – 4.945

3.354

<.001

2.269 – 4.959

Perceptions of MR-IPV compliance

  Compliance in general

1.527

.080

.950 – 2.453

2.027

.004

1.253 – 3.277

  Compliance by leaders

1.417

.187

.844 – 2.376

1.839

.022

1.092 – 3.099

  Compliance by colleagues

1.635

.042

1.018 – 2.625

1.581

.054

.992 – 2.519

Experience with risk assessment tools

  Some form of risk assessment

1.034

.666

.889 – 1.203

1.112

.206

.943 – 1.312

  Structural risk assessment

1.511

<.001

1.228 – 1.859

1.374

.002

1.125 – 1.678

Perceptions of workplace time management

  Time with patients etc.

.850

.019

.743 - .973

.808

.003

.701 - .932

  Impractical working conditions

.895

.151

.769 – 1.041

1.017

.832

.871 – 1.187