Provider ambivalence about using forensic medical evaluation to respond to child abuse: A content and discourse analysis

Forensic medical evaluation rates for child abuse victims in Texas are low relative to national rates. In exploring reasons, researchers collected quantitative and qualitative interview and focus group data from multidisciplinary child abuse response team members across the state. This paper presents results of a secondary analysis of (N = 19) health care providers' interview and focus group transcripts, looking specifically at experiences with conducting forensic evaluations - thoughts, struggles, and ethical issues. The analysis was conducted from a critical realist perspective using content and discourse analysis. A theme of ambivalence was identified and explored. Three discursive themes were identified: ambivalence about the legal role, the health care role, and about unintended outcomes of evaluations. Extra-discursive elements related to the physical body, resource distribution, and funding policy were examined for their interaction with discursive patterns. Implications of findings include addressing issues in the current approach to responding to child abuse (e.g., uniting around common definitions of abuse; refining parameters for when FME is helpful; shoring up material resources for the abuse response infrastructure) and considering modification of providers' roles and activities relative to forensic work (e.g., deploying providers for prevention activities versus reactive activities).