Evaluating an Educational Intervention for Improving Provider Recognition and Response to Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Experienced by Veterans and Their Families - A Mixed Method Pilot Randomized Trial
Phase: NA
Conditions: Domestic Violence, Veterans Family, Veterans, Child Maltreatment
Sponsor: McMaster University

Page 1 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Evaluating an Educational Intervention for Improving Provider Recognition and Response 
to IPV Experienced by Veterans and their Families – A Mixed Method Pilot Randomized 
Trial 
 
1.0 Background /Introduction 
Canadian military and veteran populations experience elevated rates of the risk factors associated 
with committing or being the victim of intimate partner violence (IPV). Relative to the general 
population, Canadian military and veteran populations are more likely to report a history of child 
maltreatment exposure (1), as well as substance and mental health-related challenges related to 
deployment, re-deployment, and combat exposure (2); each of these experiences has been found 
to be associated with the likelihood of IPV perpetration or victimization  (3-7). Population-level 
estimates of IPV prevalence among Canadian veterans –which include retired/discharged 
members of the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF; Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army, and 
Royal Canadian Air Force) and retired members of Royal Canadian Mounted Police—are not 
available. However,  a recent systematic review and meta-analysis of predominately American 
studies showed that one in eight active duty personnel and veterans self-report perpetrating IPV 
in their intimate relationship and one in five report recent IPV victimization (8). Similarly, 
approximately 30% of individuals who are members of the CAF or whose partner is a member of 
the CAF self-report IPV victimization (9, 10). By extension, this indicates that at the population 
level, close to one-third of CAF veterans or their partners, will experience some form of IPV 
victimization in their lifetime and this proportion is likely an underestimate.  
Healthcare and social service providers (HSSP) who work with veteran populations have 
an important role in the prevention of IPV recurrence and associated impairment (11, 12). 
However, increasing evidence (13-24) indicates that generally, HSSPs receive insufficient 
training related to recognizing and responding to IPV in their clinical encounters; providers 
report discomfort initiating conversations about IPV, a lack of time to adequately recognize and 
respond to disclosures, and challenges with determining appropriate referrals and reporting 
requirements. These challenges can be exacerbated in the context of veteran populations given 
unique healthcare and social service structures and stigma related to disclosing IPV. It is also 
important to note that the optimal approach for preparing HSSPs with the knowledge and skills 
to effectively recognize and respond to IPV, remains unclear. Educational interventions that have 
been evaluated vary in their instructional approaches and fail to consider active controls (i.e., 
comparator programs that also focus on IPV, but use different instructional methods). They also 
tend to focus on physical and sexual IPV, as well as screening; this is despite evidence and 
statements from the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health and Care 
Excellence and the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care that indicate there is no 
evidence that universal screening for IPV reduces IPV recurrence or improves the health 
outcomes of individuals exposed to IPV. Finally, few educational interventions acknowledge the 
complex overlap between IPV, children’s exposure to IPV, and other forms of family violence, 
including child physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and neglect (25). Collectively, this 
information indicates an urgent need for educational interventions and associated evaluations 
that address all forms of IPV and related forms of family violence, across healthcare and social 
service disciplines working with veteran members, and which provide evidence for the optimal 
educational approach for improving provider knowledge and skills to effectively recognize and 
respond to IPV.  
 

Page 2 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
1.1 Overview and Rationale for Selection of Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action Project 
(VEGA) Education Intervention 
The Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action (VEGA) Education Resources1 are  a novel education 
intervention that has the potential to improve the preparation of healthcare and social service 
providers (HHSPs) to be able to effectively recognize and respond to IPV and related forms of 
family violence, including child maltreatment (CM), in their clinical encounters. VEGA 
resources were developed based on systematic reviews and consultation with individuals 
belonging to 22 national healthcare and social service organizations, including the Royal College 
of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (see www.vegaproject.mcmaster.ca). VEGA resources 
follow a competency-based framework and a participatory, encounter-based curriculum that 
includes four learning modules: (a) the epidemiology of IPV and CM; (b) strategies for safely 
recognizing and responding to (i) IPV and (ii) CM; and (c) principles for ensuring safe clinical 
encounters for IPV and CM discussions. VEGA can be completed as a self-directed learning 
opportunity or in a workshop that is led by two trained facilitators; both approaches take 
approximately 3.5 hours to complete. Importantly, neither of the VEGA educational approaches 
have been evaluated as an adjunct to standard HSSP education for improving HSSP knowledge 
and skills related to IPV.  
 
1Used with permission from the VEGA Project. 
 
 
2.0  Study Design 
2.1 Study objectives 
The overall goal of this study is to determine the acceptability and feasibility of administering 
the VEGA intervention to Canadian veteran service providers, adjunct to standard HHSP 
education. We also aim to generate initial estimates of the effectiveness of the VEGA resources 
for improving knowledge and skills for recognizing and responding to IPV and CM in this 
population. Our initial secondary objective was to contribute to the knowledge base regarding the 
optimal educational approach for education in IPV and CM among veteran-serving HSSPs. 
These objectives were to be achieved by conducting a two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial 
of 80 veteran-serving HHSPs that compares the two educational approaches: self-directed VEGA 
(experimental arm) and facilitator-led VEGA (active control arm). 
As of March 2023, after consulting with our collaborators at the Atlas Institute, we are moving to 
a one-arm pilot trial of the self-directed VEGA resources. Due to low enrollment, we want to 
focus on our primary aim which is to deliver the VEGA resources to this population of HHSPs. 
Facilitator-led VEGA requires a minimum number of participants in order to move forward with 
a single workshop which is proving harder to achieve given the longstanding infrastructure 
challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic for front-line service providers and their 
schedules. With support from our collaborators at Atlas, we are now restricting our intervention 
delivery to the self-directed VEGA resources given the freedom with which participants can 
complete the intervention independently with varying schedules. 
 
We are now focusing on achieving sample size aims for one of the two arms of the study and no 
longer going to evaluate the facilitator-led VEGA. Our primary aim will be achieved by 

Page 3 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
conducting a one-arm pilot trial of 40 veteran-serving HHSPs where participants will complete 
self-directed VEGA. 
2.1.1 Two arm pilot randomized controlled trial (February 2022 to May 2023).  
Primary outcomes of feasibility will be obtained by the RC tracking the recruitment and 
administration of the VEGA resources. The perceived acceptability and impact of the approaches 
will be determined by qualitative interviews conducted in a sub-sample of participants. The 
evaluation of secondary outcomes will be powered to detect moderate self-reported 
improvements in IPV and CM knowledge and skills, as well as preparedness and self-efficacy 
related to recognizing and responding to IPV and CM. These secondary outcomes will be 
obtained via self-report surveys administered at baseline (Time 1), post-education (Time 2), and 
at 3-month follow-up time points (Time 3). 
 
2.1.2 Mixed Method Research Design. 
We will use the embedded-experiment (QUAN(qual)) mixed method research design (26, 27). A 
strand of quantitative data collection will provide important acceptability and feasibility metrics 
related to enrollment, retention, attrition, data completeness, as well as exploratory estimates of 
education effect for the VEGA resources. The qualitative strand of data collection will generate 
important contextual information regarding the tenability of an RCT, the perceived value and 
impact of the VEGA resources and examine the why of acceptability and feasibility, as well as 
educational impact (or not) from the perspective of veteran-service providers. 
2.1.3 Primary and Secondary Aims 
Primary Aims: To determine the feasibility and acceptability of an RCT comparing two VEGA 
educational approaches, the self-directed vs facilitator-led VEGA, in HHSPs who serve veterans 
and their families. To determine the feasibility of the RCT we will use four outcomes: (i) the 
number of HHSPs who meet eligibility criteria and (ii) who agree to be randomized to either 
self-directed or facilitator-led VEGA education approaches, both overall and per week of 
recruitment, (iii) the proportion of HHSPs who complete each arm, with completion consisting 
of the review of all module content and the animated simulations in the case of self-directed 
VEGA and full attendance of the virtual workshop in the case of facilitator-led VEGA and (iv) 
the feasibility of collecting trial outcome data at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3. The acceptability 
of the facilitator-led and self-directed educational approaches as well as their value and impact 
will be determined via the coding of qualitative interview data from a sub-sample of participants. 
Our aims are that (i) we will recruit, on average, 5 providers per week and achieve our sample 
aims of 80 participants within 16 weeks, (ii) the proportion of providers who contact the research 
team about participation and who consent to randomization will be 70% or greater, (iii) the 
proportion of providers who are randomized and complete their assigned intervention will be 
70% or greater for each arm and (iv) the proportion of missing data for each time-point will be 
less than 20%.  

Page 4 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
As of March 2023, we will revise primary outcomes (ii) and (iii) to (ii) the number of HHSPs 
who consent to participate in the study and complete self-directed VEGA, both overall and per 
week of recruitment, (iii) the proportion of HHSPs who complete self-directed VEGA, with 
completion consisting of the review of all module content and the animated simulations in the 
case of self-directed VEGA. Our aims are (ii) the proportion of providers who contact the 
research team about participation and who consent to participate will be 70% or greater and (iii) 
the proportion of providers who complete self-directed VEGA will be 70% or greater. 
Qualitative description will be used to expand and extend what we learn about acceptability and 
feasibility of implementing the VEGA training approaches and associated research activities and 
detail the pros and cons of each educational approach; we anticipate that participants will not 
identify any fatal flaws related to the conduct of an RCT.  
Secondary Aims: Six secondary outcomes are included to evaluate the VEGA training. These 
include self-reported HHSP (a) knowledge and skills as well as (b) preparedness and (c) self-
efficacy related to recognizing and responding to IPV and CM in veterans and their families. 
We hypothesize that we will see significant increases in preparedness, knowledge and skills, and 
self-efficacy for both CM and IPV in both the experimental and AC arms from Time 1 to Time 2 
and Time 1 to Time 3. We also predict that these improvements will be slightly attenuated in the 
experimental arm.  
As of March 2023, we will not be assessing differences in changes in our secondary outcomes 
between the experimental and AC arms. We hypothesize we will see significant increases in 
preparedness, knowledge and skills, and self-efficacy for both CM and IPV in the experimental 
(i.e. self-directed) VEGA arm from Time 1 to Time 2 and Time 1 to Time 3. Qualitative data 
pertaining to perceived value and impact will corroborate the quantitative findings. 
2.2 Sampling and Recruitment 
To determine the feasibility of evaluating the effectiveness of both of VEGA’s educational 
approaches, as well as to generate preliminary estimates of effect for sampling and effect size 
calculations, a two-arm pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be used (28). Eligible 
participants will be randomly assigned to receive either self-directed (i.e., experimental) or 
facilitator-led (i.e., active control (AC)) VEGA. The RCT will follow the Consolidated Standards 
of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and will be registered with clinicaltrials.gov, 
following ethics approval. The trial design is summarized in Figure 1 below. 
Figure 1. Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial – Participant Flow 
 

Page 5 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
 
 
As of March 2023, we will be using a one-arm pilot trial. 
Eligible participants will be asked to complete self-directed 
VEGA only. 
 
Figure 2. Pilot Trial – Participant Flow as of March 2023  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Contacting Directors of Programs 
Webinars for Recruitment, 
Screening of Participants into Study 
Informed Consent 
Self-Directed VEGA (Experimental) 
Facilitator-Led VEGA (Active 
Control) 
Baseline (Time 1) Survey 
Randomization 
Post-Education (Time 2) Survey 
Qualitative Interview (n=30) 
3-Month Follow-Up (Time 3) 
Survey 

Page 6 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
2.2.1 Eligibility and Screening 
Study participants will be recruited from a population of veteran-serving HSSPs working within 
programs, agencies, and organizations recommended by the Atlas Institute for Veterans and 
Families, examples include the Veteran Affairs Canada (VAC) Assistance Service, the Veteran 
Family Program, or the Operational Stress Injury Clinics. These contacts will be within Atlas’ 
and the research team’s professional networks. Direct recruitment of providers will also take 
place via social media accounts of research team members and partnering agencies [see 
CoE_VEGA_Social Media Drafts_V2_10APR2023]. Veteran-Serving HSSPs are eligible for 
inclusion if: 
i. 
They are healthcare or social service professionals. 
ii. 
They are working with military and/or RCMP veterans or military and/or RCMP 
veteran’s family members in a direct service capacity at least one day per week 
OR they have at least two years or more of experience working with military 
and/or RCMP veterans or their family members in a direct service capacity OR 
they have worked with 15 or more patients that were either military and/or RCMP 
veterans or their family members in a direct service capacity. 
iii. 
They are willing and capable of providing informed, written consent and 
completing all project activities in English. 
 
Exclusion Criteria: HSSPs who have previously registered to access VEGA materials; HSSPs 
who are currently enrolled in or expected to enroll in any other educational intervention focused 
on family violence (intimate partner violence, child maltreatment, childhood exposure to IPV) 
within the study time period.  
Directors of programs and agencies/organizations recommended by Atlas as well as providers 
belonging to the professional networks of the teams’ will be contacted by the Research 
Coordinator (RC) and PI via email and provided with a one-page overview of the study and the 
opportunity to meet with the research team to address study-related questions [see “Step 1: Initial 
Contact of Program Directors and Professional Contacts” in 
CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_V8_12MAY2023”]. If a meeting takes place, during the meeting, the 
team will discuss the study with the program directors/professional contacts and program 
directors will be asked to sign an Expression of Interest (EOI) form [see 
“CoE_VEGA_EOI_V3_24MAY2022”]. The EOI form asks program directors to support (a) 
HSSP completion of VEGA training components, and (b) HHSPs to complete research activities 
outside regular work hours to receive study honoraria. The Expression of Interest form also asks 
program directors to confirm that the program is not currently participating in other research 
projects concerning family violence. During the meeting, the team will obtain verbal consent 
from the directors of enrolled programs to allow staff to attend study-related webinars, led by the 
project team, prior to the launch of recruitment efforts. Webinar content will review staff 
eligibility criteria, as well as recruitment and research-related procedures. Following the 
completion of the webinars, directors of the enrolled programs will distribute recruitment 
materials via email to all providers; materials will encourage interested participants to contact the 
research team [see “Step 2: Webinar Content and Recruitment Materials” in 

Page 7 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
“CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_V8_12MAY2023”]. These materials include a one-page flyer that 
summarizes the study purpose, what the VEGA intervention is generally about, and honorarium 
available to participants for completing the research components [see 
“CoE_VEGA_OnePageFlyerB_V4_29MAR2023”]. These recruitment materials will also be 
available in French.  
As of March 2023, after feedback from our sponsor, we are removing the request to have a 
meeting with directors at programs/agencies and professional contacts in our initial email script. 
We have replaced this with a simple request to contacts to distribute the one-page flyer attached 
to the email, to their network. If contacts express an interest in allowing us to present webinars to 
providers, we will inform them via email that the webinars are not overseen by HiREB and give 
them the opportunity to obtain REB approval of the slides and their content [see pg. 2 of 
CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_V8_12MAY2023”]. 
We will also recruit using a snowball subject sampling method. Participants will be invited to 
share the study with their contacts to allow for an accumulation of participants over time. At the 
conclusion of completing the consent process, the 'source' participant will be asked if they know 
any other residents meeting our eligibility criteria and whom they think may be interested in 
participating in this study. If the participant indicates that they do know someone that may be 
interested and who may meet the study eligibility criteria, the source participant/participants will 
forward the study information letter and one-page flyer to the individual(s) so that the 
individual(s) can contact the research team, if they are interested in participating. It will be up to 
the participant as to whether or not they indicate to the individual(s) in that email as to whether 
or not the participant actually participated in the study. 
2.2.2 Informed Consent  
Once a provider has initiated contact with the research team, the research assistant (RA) will, 
depending on the participant’s preference, either arrange a telephone call to discuss the study and 
ask eligibility and demographic screening questions or send them a link to the screening & 
demographics questionnaire hosted on REDCap [see “Step 3: Initial Contact from Participant & 
Arranging Screening and Demographics Questionnaire” in “CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_ 
V8_12MAY2023”]. During the call, the RA will first give a short description of the training and 
research components of the study with the opportunity of providers to ask questions. If 
participants choose to self-complete the questionnaire online, there will also be a short 
description of the study before participants complete the questionnaire on REDCap. The 
screening and demographics questionnaire will contain a series of questions to determine the 
eligibility of providers for the study, defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria above. It will 
also ask a series of sociodemographic questions [for eligibility and demographic questions, see 
“Appendix A: Screening Eligibility and Demographic Questionnaire REDCap Form” in 
“CoE_VEGA_ScreeningCallScript_ V7_03APR2023”]. If completing measures over the phone, 
the provider’s answers will be entered by the RA into REDCap. We will obtain written consent 
from providers to keep their responses to the screening and demographics questionnaire should 
they end up being ineligible or do not end up participating in the study. This is for the purpose of 
comparing those who end up participating to those who do not end up participating to understand 

Page 8 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
if our criteria are potentially excluding a particular group of people or if those who do not end up 
participating belong to a particular group. 
After completing the eligibility and demographic questions, providers will be informed of their 
eligibility for the study. This communication will occur via phone [see pg. 2-3 of 
CoE_VEGA_ScreeningCallScript_V7_03APR2023] or email [see pg. 4-5 of 
CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_V8_12MAY2023] based on the participant’s preference.  
Providers will be emailed a link to an electronic version on REDCap and a pdf version of the 
Letter of Information/Consent (hereafter referred to as “consent form”) [see “Step 4: Electronic 
Consent Form” in “CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_ V8_12MAY2023”]. Together, the RA and 
practitioner will review the Letter of Information/Consent [see 
“CoE_VEGA_ConsentForm_V8_03MAR2023”] per International Conference on Harmonization 
– Good Clinical Practice (ICH-GCP) guidelines and institutional policy. Providers will be 
encouraged to take as much time as they need to review the consent form and will be provided 
the opportunity to speak with the RA on the phone if they have any questions at any time. The 
consent form will outline the purpose of the study, the commitment that will be required of 
participants, the potential risks and benefits associated with study participation, and all the 
measures the research team will take to protect their confidentiality. It will be the responsibility 
of the person obtaining consent to ensure that participants understand the extent of their role in 
the research. The RA obtaining consent will foster an open exchange of information, 
encouraging potential participants to ask questions prior to research involvement, to review the 
pdf copy of the consent form at any time, and to continue to ask questions that may arise at any 
point during the study if they participate. Details of the consent form will be presented in simple 
language as approved by the Research Ethics Board (REB) of the institutions involved. If the 
participant indicates they are ready to complete the consent form, they will be asked to select the 
option “I agree to participate in the study,” to enter their full name and the date, and 
electronically sign in the consent form on REDCap. After completing this and submitting on 
REDCap, the RA will download a PDF copy of the consent form with the participant’s responses 
from REDCap. They will add the following using Adobe PDF software: “Consent form 
administered by,” and print their name, electronically sign, and date. If the participant prefers to 
provide written consent using the PDF copy of the consent form, we will make this option 
available to them and they can print their name, sign and date, and submit this to the RA or LPI 
by email or to the LPI by mail. The RA will print their name, sign and date, on this form where it 
says “consent form administered by.”   
Once the participant provides written consent, the RA will send the baseline (Time 1) 
questionnaire. The Time 1 questionnaire will be sent via an email that will contain a link to the 
assessment measures hosted in REDCap. Providers will be asked to complete measures within 
one week of receipt of the email. 
 
2.2.3 Randomization 

Page 9 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Randomization will occur after consent has been obtained and the web-based baseline (Time 1) 
survey is complete. As indicated in the previous section, randomization will occur five business 
days before the facilitator-led VEGA session the participant is available to attend is scheduled. 
Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two conditions using stratified block 
randomization, with a block size of 4 (blocking factor of 2), using an internet-based 
randomization service; https://www.randomize.net/. Randomization will be stratified based on 
sex at birth with two levels to this variable: female and male.  
Participants will be informed of their treatment arm status by the RC. The RC will not reveal 
participant allocations to the RA who will be directly involved in the quantitative data collection. 
Participants will also be encouraged not to inform the RA of their allocation.  
As of March 2023, participants will not be randomized to complete either facilitator-led or self-
directed VEGA, all participants will be asked to complete self-directed VEGA. 
 
2.2.4 Education Intervention 
Self-Directed VEGA – Experimental Arm uses an approach where participants complete the 
Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action Project (VEGA) content online as a self-directed 
educational activity, at their own pace in a series of modules. Individuals will register to access 
the VEGA Education Resources site at https://vegaproject.mcmaster.ca/. Registration will be 
free. They will be asked to provide their name and email to be sent the online resources. They 
will also be asked to agree to terms of use to access this site. Participants will be sent an 
information sheet that outlines the steps to register and access the VEGA materials online [ 
“CoE_VEGA_SelfDirectedRegsitration_V6_03MAR2023.”]. Participants have the option of 
completing the self-directed VEGA arm in either English or French as the VEGA Educational 
Resources site offers the content in French and English. The consent form will inform 
participants this is an option for the self-directed VEGA arm only. The information sheet for 
registering for self-directed VEGA will also show participants how to access the French version 
of the VEGA online modules [CoE_VEGA_SelfDirectedRegsitration_V6_03MAR2023.”].  
Participants will be asked to direct all content-related questions to the RC who will forward them 
to the VEGA team to see if they can be answered. Participants will be provided the contact 
information for the VEGA IT Team who will address any technology-related questions they may 
have while completing the self-directed VEGA program [see “RISE with Veteran Service 
Providers – Training Program Assignment” in CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_ V8_12MAY2023]. If 
they haven’t completed them already, participants will receive reminders via email every two 
days from the RC reminding them to complete the self-directed VEGA online modules [see 
“RISE with Veteran Service Providers – Online Modules Reminder” in 
CoE_VEGA_EmailScripts_V8_12MAY2023”]. 
Participants will be asked to complete the self-directed VEGA at their convenience, within one 
week of when they are informed they have been asked to complete the self-directed VEGA 
program. It will take approximately 3 hours for participants to complete all modules.  

Page 10 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Facilitator-Led VEGA – Active Control Arm uses a group-based approach where participants 
complete the Violence, Evidence, Guidance, Action Project (VEGA) content as a virtual or face-
to-face workshop (i.e., facilitator-led VEGA). In this study, all workshops will be virtual to 
prevent social gathering during COVID-19.The AC intervention will be facilitated via Zoom 
technology, by two trained facilitators with between 15 to 20 participants in each workshop 
(keeping the recommended 10:1 participant-to-facilitator ratio) and will last approximately 3 
hours. The workshop approach is delivered by trained facilitators and is standardized via the use 
of a flexibly structured facilitator’s guide. 
As of March 2023, no participants will be asked to complete facilitator-led VEGA, as we are 
removing this arm from the study. 
 VEGA training takes approximately 3 hours to complete and pedagogical elements for both 
approaches have been informed by education scholarship. Below is a table outlining the common 
pedagogical elements in the self-directed and facilitator-led VEGA education interventions 
(Table 1). 
 
3.0 Data Collection 
 
3.1.1 Feasibility Statistics 
The RC will keep track of the number of providers who: (a) agreed to be screened; (b) are 
eligible for participation; and (c) enroll. We will also record the number of: (d) emails/phone 
calls needed to arrange all research assessments; (e) participants who drop out; participants who 
(f) could not be reached for follow-up; (g) complete the intervention; and (h) partially complete 
vs. fully complete research assessments for our Primary Objectives. As an indicator of 
feasibility, we will also record the total time to complete all quantitative assessments. 
 
3.1.2 Quantitative Assessments 
A trained research assistant (RA) will gather all data from all participants during three study 
assessment time points. Quantitative assessments will be hosted on REDCap and will be 
available online using a web-based link and emailed to participants at three time points: the week 
before they begin the VEGA training (Time 1), post-education (Time 2), and 3-months after the 
Time 1 survey is completed (Time 3). Participants will be asked to complete the surveys within 
one week, from the date they are initially sent, on their own time. Time 1 surveys will be sent 

Page 11 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
after completing the consent form, Time 2 will be sent the day after the online modules are due 
to be completed (experimental arm), and Time 3 will be sent 3 months after this date, to be 
completed within two weeks. Each survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. A 
detailed list and description of study measures can be found below. The format of all of surveys, 
listing all of the questions in each questionnaire can be found in 
[“CoE_VEGA_QuantitativeSurvey_ V3_12MAY2022”]. Due to changes in requirements for 
continuing education credits, we created an alternative version of the survey 
[“CoE_VEGA_QuantitativeSurveyB_ V3_24MAR2023”] that excludes the measures “Child 
Maltreatment Knowledge and Skills Questions developed by the VEGA team” and “Satisfaction 
with VEGA training” because the VEGA team will administer questions required for continuing 
education credits. As of March 2023, all participants in the study will be administered this 
version [CoE_VEGA_QuanitativeSurveyB_V3_24MAR2023], we will not be administering the 
original version [CoE_VEGA_QuanitativeSurvey_V3_12MAY2022]. As a courtesy, participants 
will also have the option of completing the surveys in either English or French. Before each 
survey, they will be asked if they would like to complete the current survey in English or French.  
3.1.3 Qualitative Interviews 
Informed consent procedures for the quantitative strand (see above) will include permission for 
the research team to approach participants for qualitative data collection. Given that the 
qualitative data will complement the quantitative strand of data collection, we will use purposive 
criterion sampling strategies to select a sub-sample of the providers (n = 30)to participate in a 
one-on-one semi-structured interview with the research team via Zoom conducted in English. 
We will endeavour to stratify recruitment of qualitative participants by sex at birth (~15 male; ~ 
15 female). 
 
Half of the individual semi-structured interviews (n= 15) will take place post-intervention 
completion and half will take place (n=15) will take place 3 months after the intervention has 
been completed. Interviews will be up to 60-minutes in length. Interviews will be scheduled 
between an experienced qualitative, education research scholar and the participant at the 
participant’s convenience. Given that members of the research team (Co-PIs and RA) will be 
involved in the coordination and delivery of VEGA resources and quantitative data collection 
components, it is essential to have a contract interviewer to conduct the qualitative interviews to 
support the unbiased collection of data. Interviews will occur by Zoom, using the audio function 
only (or by phone, if the participant prefers). Interviews will be audio recorded, and will be 
transcribed verbatim. A semi-structured interview guide of 5-to-7 key questions and probes will 
guide the interview [see “CoE_VEGA_Qualitative Interview_V6_12MAY2023”]. Field notes 
completed by the interviewer will document observations, patterns or dialectical positions which 
may be relevant to analysis. 
 
3.2 Measures  
3.2.1 Secondary Outcome Measures 
Child Maltreatment Vignette Scale (Pelletier et al., 2014; Pelletier & Knox, 2017).  The 
Child Maltreatment Vignette scale (29, 30) is a psychometrically validated measure of 
knowledge and skill accuracy related to recognizing and responding to child maltreatment. 
Respondents will be prompted to review 14 distinct analog vignettes that depict a range of signs 

Page 12 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
and symptoms of possible CM exposure. Upon completing their review of each vignette, 
providers will be asked to indicate their responses to two questions, “For any child/youth in this 
scenario, do you have reason to suspect child maltreatment?” and “Would you report this case to 
Child Welfare Services?” These changes to the question wording and small changes to the 
wording of the scenarios were made to align the measure with the Canadian context. Responses 
will be scored as either correct (‘1’) or incorrect (‘0’) as predetermined, a priori, by a panel of 
CM experts; a mean “knowledge and skill accuracy” score will be produced for analysis, 
with higher scores indicative of greater knowledge and skill accuracy related to CM. They will 
also be asked their relative confidence in their response on a scale from 50-100%. This will be 
administered as part of the surveys at all three timepoints. In a future RCT, this would be one of 
the primary outcomes of interest since this is a robust measure of practitioner knowledge and 
skills related to CM. Time to administer is approximately 15 minutes.  
 
Child Maltreatment Knowledge and Skills Questions (Developed by VEGA Team).  
Participants will be asked a series of questions about their knowledge and skills related to 
recognizing and responding to child maltreatment. These were developed by the VEGA training 
research team to capture specific aspects of CM knowledge directly addressed in the VEGA 
intervention and which are outside the scope of the child maltreatment vignette scale. The 
questions ask about the following topics (and more not mentioned here): parental/family risk 
factors for family violence, what future outcomes are associated with child maltreatment, other 
possible signs of child abuse, and principles for good documentation and providing ongoing care 
to children experiencing maltreatment. A full list of the questions can be found in Section 2.4 of 
the quantitative survey (see Section 2.4 of CoE_VEGA_QuanitativeSurvey_V3_04MAY2022). 
Including this measure in our study will allow us to make cross sample comparisons. 
 
The Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (Short et al., 2006; 
Connor et al., 2011). The Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey 
(PREMIS) is a 67-item self-report tool that was developed to assess physician management of 
intimate partner violence across 10 subscales (31, 32). Survey questions are grouped into four 
major sections (1) background (four scales concerning previous IPV training, perceived IPV 
knowledge and preparation), (2) actual knowledge, (3) IPV attitudes and beliefs, and (4) practice 
issues (a 13-item scale of self-reported behaviors concerning individual and office IPV practices 
and policies).  
a. PREMIS Section III: IPV Knowledge. The IPV knowledge section, consisting of 
multiple answer, multiple choice, and true-false questions will be used to measure 
IPV knowledge and skills. An IPV “knowledge score” will be computed following 
previous scoring guidelines (Short et al., 2006). In a future RCT, this would be a 
primary outcome of interest to measure practitioner knowledge and skills related to 
IPV. This will be administered as part of the surveys at all three timepoints. Time 
to administer is approximately 10 minutes. 

Page 13 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
 
b. PREMIS: Adapted Preparedness Subscale.  The preparedness subscale of PREMIS 
asks respondents to indicate the extent to which they feel prepared to address various 
aspects of IPV recognition and response when working with their clients across 10 
items; these aspects include the conduct of safety assessments, asking appropriate 
questions about IPV, responding to IPV disclosures, among others. Response options 
are on a 7-item Likert type scale ranging from “Not prepared” (1) to “Quite Well 
Prepared” (7) and items are averaged to generate a mean score for practitioner 
preparedness, with higher scores indicative of generally greater preparedness to 
recognize and respond to IPV.  
 
For the purposes of this study, an adapted version of the preparedness subscale was 
used to assess preparedness to recognize and respond to IPV. The last item, “Fulfill 
state reporting requirements for (a) IPV, (b) child abuse, and (c) elder abuse” was 
dropped because other questionnaires in this survey address providers’ self-reported 
ability to fulfill these requirements, for a total of 9 items. Total scores for 
preparedness to respond to IPV will be calculated by summing the responses selected 
for all 9 items and will range from 9 to 63. 
 
An adapted version of the preparedness subscale was administered to assess 
provider’s preparedness to recognize and respond to CM. All items were changed to 
be related to CM instead of IPV (e.g., “ask appropriate questions about IPV” was 
changed to “ask appropriate questions about CM”). Several items were dropped from 
the subscale as they are not relevant in the case of CM: “Help an IPV victim assess 
whether their life is in danger,” “Conduct a safety assessment related to IPV”, “Help 
an IPV victim create a safety plan,” for a total of 6 items. Total scores for 
preparedness to respond to IPV will be calculated by summing the responses selected 
for all 6 items and will range from 6 to 42. 
 
These two versions of the preparedness subscale will be administered at Time 1, 
Time 2, Time 3. Time to administer is approximately 2 minutes, a total of 4 minutes 
to administer both the IPV and CM versions. 
 
c. PREMIS: Opinions. The Opinions section of the PREMIS asks respondents to 
indicate their level of agreement/disagreement with various statements about care of 
those with IPV across 32 items. Response options are on a 7-item Likert type scale 
ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree. We will use an adapted 
version of this scale which dropped items related to their compliance with legal 
requirements for IPV. This adapted version will be used to measure provider attitudes 
and beliefs about IPV and care of those with IPV in five subscales: (1) preparation, 
(2) workplace issues, (3) self-efficacy, (4) alcohol/drugs, and (5) victim 
understanding. We will follow previous methods to calculate these subscales by 
averaging the responses to items that make up the subscale (Short et al., 2006). The 
opinions section of the PREMIS will be administered at Time 1 and Time 3, with 
the exception of the self-efficacy questions which will be administered in a 

Page 14 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
separate section at Time 2 as well. It will take approximately 10 minutes to 
complete. 
 
d. PREMIS: Self-Efficacy Subscale. The self-efficacy subscale of the PREMIS 
comprises three questions from the Opinions section of the PREMIS: “I ask all new 
patients about abuse in their relationships,” “I feel comfortable discussing IPV with 
my patients,” and “I am able to gather the necessary information to identify IPV as 
the underlying cause of patient illnesses (e.g. depression, migraines).” The self-
efficacy score is calculated by averaging the responses of these three items. This will 
be a primary outcome of interest in a future RCT as a measure of provider’s self-
efficacy to recognize and respond to IPV. The three items comprising this subscale 
will be administered at Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3, and will take approximately 1 
minute to administer. 
 
Mandatory Reporting Self-Efficacy Scale (Ayling, 2019). The Mandatory Reporting Self-
Efficacy Scale (MRSES) is a 7-item self-report measure that asks respondents to indicate the 
extent to which they perceive their ability to implement a series of behaviours related to 
mandatory reporting of CM (33). Informed by Bandura’s self-efficacy theory and 
recommendations for self-efficacy scales (34), response options are anchored on a scale from 0 
to 100 with statements at 0, 50, and 100 indicating: “cannot do at all (0)”; moderately can do 
(50)”; and “highly certain can do (100).” A total score is generated by summing items across the 
scale for each participant, with higher scores indicative of greater self-efficacy related to 
recognizing and reporting suspected CM. We anticipate that this measure will be a key mediator 
of interest in a future definitive RCT given that across provincial and territorial jurisdictions in 
Canada (including Ontario), a suspicion of CM meets the threshold for a report to child 
protection authorities (35,36). This will be administered as part of the surveys at all three 
timepoints. Time to administer is approximately 5 minutes. 
 
 
Brief Individual Readiness for Change Scale (Goldman, 2009). The Brief Individual 
Readiness for Change (BIRCS) scale is a 5-item readiness for change tool (39). The scale’s 
purpose is to screen for practitioners’ readiness for change, in other words their receptivity to 
learning and applying new evidence-based research practices. For the purpose of this study, the 
items were adapted to assess provider’s readiness to recognize and respond to all forms of (a) 
IPV and (b) CM in their practice. Response options range from ‘0’ Strongly Disagree to ‘4’ 
Strongly Agree. Two items were added, “I believe recognizing and responding to [IPV/CM] in 
my practice improves outcomes for my clients,” and “I am motivated to learn about [IPV/CM]” 
to capture other aspects of providers’ readiness to learn about IPV and CM and their belief’s 
about how this will impact their practice. Total and average scores will be calculated by 
summing or averaging the item responses for both the original scale items and with the added 
two items. These two versions of the scale will take approximately 1 minute each to complete 
and will be administered at Time 1 and Time 2.  

Page 15 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
 
3.2.2 Other Measures  
Demographics 
Sociodemographic characteristics will be collected for all participants who are screened for the 
study, whether they are ineligible or eligible. These will include their age, province of practice, 
highest level of education attainment, their major discipline, their sex at birth and their self-
identified gender. We will also collect some characteristics about the current organization or 
practice they work for, specifically what populations among military and/or RCMP veterans and 
their families they serve and if consent is required by the veteran for the participant to provide 
services to a family member. A full list of all demographic questions can be found in “Appendix 
A: Screening and Demographics Call REDCap Form” of “CoE_VEGA_ScreeningCallScript_ 
V7_03APR2023.” 
Previous Training in Intimate Partner Violence and Child Maltreatment 
At Time 1 only, participants will be asked questions to gauge their previous education or training 
in IPV and CM. Participants will be given a definition of IPV and CM and asked in what subject 
areas of IPV and CM they have received education and training in, and which of these 
environments (up to three) have been the most helpful. 
Thoughts and Beliefs about Recognizing and Responding to IPV and CM in Professional 
Roles 
Participants will be asked to rate their agreement with four statements about how much they 
believe (1) recognizing IPV (2) recognizing CM (3) responding to IPV and (4) responding to CM 
is a part of their professional role. We are recruiting a wide variety of HHSPs that we anticipate 
may vary in their self-perceptions of how relevant recognizing and responding to IPV and CM is 
in their professional roles. This will be administered at Time 1 and Time 2 and will take 
approximately 1 minute to complete. 
Satisfaction with VEGA Training 
At Time 2, participants will complete a series of multiple choice and short-answer questions 
asking what they thought about the VEGA training. These questions will apply to all participants 
whether they completed self-directed or facilitator-led VEGA. Questions will include whether 
they believe the intended learning outcomes were achieved, what they thought of the 
instructional materials and educational scenarios, and how they would rate the usefulness of 
VEGA. 
 
  
4.0 Statistical Analyses 
4.1 Quantitative Analyses 

Page 16 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
4.1.1 Sociodemographic Characteristics: Descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, 
relevant quantiles, and proportions) will be used to report the sample of HHSP’s 
sociodemographic characteristics. 
4.1.2 Primary Outcomes: Descriptive statistics (totals, means, standard deviations) will be used 
to compare primary outcomes to a priori thresholds for acceptability and feasibility outlined in 
section 2.1.2 Primary Aims.  
4.1.3 Secondary Outcomes: Our secondary outcomes will be analyzed via generating bivariate 
correlations and regression coefficients for variables we hypothesize to be mediators, 
moderators, and outcomes for a definitive trial.  
4.1.4 Missing Data: We will use a force-choiced framework in REDCap in to reduce the 
possibility of missing data.. 
 
4.2 Sample Size 
We will recruit a voluntary sample of 80 HHSPs that will be randomized to either the 
experimental or AC arm. We have selected this sample size given previous work which indicates 
that 40 HSSPs per arm would provide 80% power to detect a moderate (0.5 SD – to – 0.6 SD) 
effect size, which is indicative of a clinically significant outcome (40).  
 
As of March 2023, we are now focusing on achieving sample size aims for one of the two arms 
of the study and no longer going to evaluate the facilitator-led VEGA. Our primary aim will be 
achieved by conducting a one-arm pilot trial of 40 veteran-serving HHSPs where participants 
will complete self-directed VEGA. In following this algorithm, our team will be able to consider 
the needed recruitment and retention rates to successfully implement a definitive education trial. 
 
4.3 Qualitative Analyses 
Transcripts of qualitative interviews, as well as associated field notes, will be managed in Nvivo 
and analyzed using reflective thematic analysis and constant comparison (41, 42). Reflective 
thematic analysis via constant comparison and analytic memo-ing will allow for the 
identification codes, categories, and themes related to implementing and evaluating the VEGA 
resources among HSSPs working with or who have worked with veterans and their family 
members (41, 42). 
 
4.4 Integration of Qualitative and Quantitative Data for Interpretation 
After conducting separate quantitative and qualitative analyses, quantitative and qualitative data 
will be integrated for interpretation. Quantitative acceptability and feasibility metrics will be 
mapped to excerpts of qualitative data on perceived acceptability or educational burden via a 
mixed method joint display; this display will support a comprehensive interpretation of the 
extent to which a definitive trial examining VEGA in our sample population is tenable. A 
separate joint display will cross-tabulate scores on secondary outcome measures with qualitative 
excerpts of VEGAs perceived value and impact for improving provider knowledge and skills 
related to IPV and CM alongside a narrative description of findings that integrates our 
conceptual frameworks for continuing education among HSSPs working with or who have 
worked with the veteran population (41-43).   
 

Page 17 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
 
5.0 Safety Parameters and Reporting  
5.1 Time requested of Participants 
Participants will be asked to complete a 15-minute screening call with a RA to determine their 
eligibility for the study and collect sociodemographic information. Participants randomized into 
one of the two VEGA education intervention arms will either attend one three-hour session (if in 
AC arm) or complete approximately three hours of module content online on their own time, 
within a one-week period. All participants will also be asked to complete three surveys as part of 
the quantitative research assessments, at baseline (Time 1), post-education (Time 2), and 3 
months follow-up (Time 3).The Time 1 survey will take ~30 minutes to complete, the Time 2 
survey ~20 minutes to complete and the Time 3 survey ~30 minutes to complete. The time 
needed to complete one survey will be tracked for the study to better estimate this burden for a 
future RCT. 
Participants who complete all three survey timepoints (baseline, post-intervention, and 3-month 
follow-up) will receive a $120.00 gift card to Amazon, Mastercard or Indigo as a token of 
appreciation for the completion of three quantitative research assessments. 
 
A sub-sample of the participants (n=30) will participate in the qualitative interview which we 
expect to take approximately 60 minutes. Each qualitative participant will receive a $60.00 gift 
card to Indigo, Mastercard or Amazon as a token of appreciation for the completion of the 
interview. 
Table 2: Timepoint Compensation Schedule 
Timepoint (data type) 
Approximate 
Length 
Compensation for 
participation (in gift 
cards): 
Screening (survey) 
15 minutes 
$0 
Baseline (Time 1; 
survey) 
30 minutes 
$40  
Post-education (Time 2; 
survey) 
30 minutes 
$40 
3-month follow-up 
(Time 3; survey) 
30 minutes 
$40 
TOTAL SURVEY 
COMPENSATION 
(All participants) 
105 minutes 
$120 
Interview (Time 2 or 
Time 3) 
60 minutes 
$60 
TOTAL 
COMPENSATION 
(n=30) 
165 minutes 
$180 
 

Page 18 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Completion of the Child Maltreatment Knowledge and Skills Questions developed by the VEGA 
team and Satisfaction with VEGA training (which will be referred to as “accreditation 
questions”) and the self-directed VEGA training has been accredited for 3 MOC credits through 
the RCPSC and 3 Mainpro+ credits through the CFPC. Certificates of completion can be used 
for continuing medical education credits through the RCPSC (all physicians except family 
physicians) or the CFPC (family physicians only) or submitted to practitioner’s college or 
association for continuing education credit (social workers and any other health professional). 
All accreditation requirements and administration of certificates will be managed by the VEGA 
Project. 
In addition, providers will receive unrestricted access to self-directed VEGA upon completion of 
the study (i.e., after all qualitative and qualitative data have been collected) to ensure all 
enrollees have ongoing, indefinite access to the educational information offered by the VEGA 
educational resources. 
5.2 Potential Risks and Plans to Mitigate Risks 
5.2.1 Adverse events 
The focus of this research is an educational intervention for regulated health and social service 
providers. Given this information, conducted participation in either arm of the pilot RCT 
involves minimal risk.   
Adverse events are any untoward health-related outcomes that occur during the study, regardless 
of how related they are to the study intervention. Facilitators and research staff directly 
interacting with participants will use their training to identify and mitigate all potential 
participant risks, including ones that may not be directly associated with study participation.  
Anticipated adverse events which are relevant to this study include those related to healthcare 
and social service providers (HSSPs) safety and wellbeing include: 
• HSSPs own experience(s) with intimate-partner violence and/or child maltreatment, 
which may raise or contribute to distress during the educational intervention or during 
research activities. 
• HSSPs experience(s) providing care to veterans or their family members who have 
experienced intimate-partner violence and/or child maltreatment, which may be 
distressing. 
 
Anticipated adverse events that are not serious will be discussed as needed by research staff with 
the Principal Investigators, if the nature of the adverse event is considered to signal unresolved 
risk to the participant. Emergency medical services will be alerted as required if there is concern 
about imminent risk to life of an adult or safety of a child. The Principal Investigator, who is a 
registered and regulated social worker and psychotherapist, will follow regulated reporting 
requirements as necessary, as well as determine if other steps are needed to mitigate risk to the 
participant. 
 
5.2.2. Serious Adverse Events 

Page 19 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) are defined within this study as any untoward health-related 
outcome in the study occurring towards a participant that:  
• Results in death;  
• Is life-threatening (an event in which the participant was at risk of death at the time of the 
event; it does refer to an event which hypothetically might have caused death if it were 
more severe);  
• Requires inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of an exiting hospitalization.  
• Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity 
 
SAEs may be reported by participants or other authorities (e.g., child protection) to research staff 
or investigators. Serious, yet anticipated study relevant events include hospitalization of a 
participant due to mental illness; participant suicide; participant hospitalization; life-threatening 
injury of a participant; participant death. Research staff members will also receive SAE report 
forms to complete following communication with research participants or collaborators. SAEs 
will be tracked in an excel database and communicated, as appropriate to the HiREB. In the case 
of anticipated serious events, providers within our partner organizations or research staff will 
notify the Principal Investigators as soon as possible, within two business days, or earlier if the 
provider or research staff member determines that investigator guidance is required to safeguard 
the safety of the participant or research staff member.  
 
5.3 Risk Mitigation 
The following strategies will be taken to mitigate risk to study participants: (1) Research staff will 
communicate to the Principal Investigator (or designated back-up) of concerns about participant 
safety or serious mental health problems concerns noted during participant interactions throughout 
the course of training administration and data collection during regular research team meetings or 
within same day if concerns are of an urgent nature. (2) In case of mental health or safety 
emergencies, the Principal Investigator or designated back-up clinician will assess the participant 
and make appropriate safety or reporting decisions as guided by their clinical expertise (e.g., 
reporting to GP, child protection, regulatory college, referring for independent assessment). All 
actions taken to mitigate risk and outcomes of these actions will be documented. (3) If the Principal 
Investigator determines that a participant must be withdrawn from the study for any reason, the 
investigator will notify the participant by telephone and inform them of other available options for 
services in the community. Zoom is an externally hosted cloud-based service approved for 
confidential research use at McMaster; all zoom-based study activities (i.e., qualitative interviews) 
will incorporate maximum security features.  
 
Since the content of the questions in the quantitative survey includes describing case scenarios of 
child maltreatment, we have added 24/7 helplines and helplines specific to healthcare providers to 
the beginning and end of the quantitative survey as a strategy to mitigate any risk of unanticipated 
or anticipated feelings of discomfort that may arise. 
 
Risks to research staff will be mitigated with the following steps: We expect there to be little risk 
to staff as all contact will be virtual or over the phone. Injuries or threats to staff will be documented 
and discussed at weekly research meetings. Details of occurrence, related outcomes and decisions 
made (e.g., withdrawal of participant, leave of absence for staff) will be documented in minutes.   
 

Page 20 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
6.0 Study Management 
6.1 Participant Confidentiality  
All attempts will be made to protect the confidentiality of all data. All participants will be 
assigned their own randomly-generated participant ID. One participant tracking document will 
contain all identifying information and will link the participant ID to the participant’s identifying 
information. This participant tracking document will be password-protected and stored on a 
secure McMaster server. Further safeguards will include limiting the collection of participant 
contact information to that which is necessary. Table 3 below outlines the justification for all 
identifying information that will be collected.  
 
Quantitative data collected via surveys will be de-identified by storing all quantitative data with 
only the ID assigned to the participant. Transcripts used for qualitative data collection will be 
linked to the participant ID as well and any identifying information the participant provides 
during the interview will be redacted from transcripts.  
 
Identifying information, including all identifying information stored in the participant tracking 
document, will be deleted one month after all data collection for the RCT is complete. Each 
audio file will be deleted after its transcription is complete.   
 
Table 3: Justification for Collection of Identifying Information 
 
Identifier 
Justification 
Email 
This will be the primary form of contact with 
participants to coordinate study-related 
assessments and intervention materials. 
Telephone Number(s) 
This will be a secondary form of contact with 
participants that will be used for screening. 
Full names 
This information is needed to communicate 
with participants.  
Province of Practice 
Since this study involves programs that are 
Canada-wide, we will be asking participants 
which province their practice is primarily in. 
Age 
This information is needed for demographic 
statistics. 
Self-Identified Gender 
 Sex at Birth 
This information is needed for demographic 
statistics and for stratification of 
randomization by sex at birth. 
 
6.2 Data Safety Measures 
6.2.1. Data Access 
The Research Coordinator, in collaboration with the Principal Investigator, will oversee all 
aspects of the data collection and management at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at the Ron 
Joyce Children’s Health Centre located at 325 Wellington St North and 293 Wellington St North, 

Page 21 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
both located in Hamilton. Access to data will be limited to certain members of the research team 
based on the type of data, listed below: 
Participant treatment allocation: The list of participant’s IDs with their study arm allocation 
after randomization will only be accessed by the facilitators and the Research Coordinator. The 
research assistant will not have access to study arm allocation. The facilitators of the VEGA 
training sessions will know which participants have been selected to complete the facilitator-led 
VEGA as they will be carrying out the workshops. VEGA workshop facilitators include 
regulated health professionals who are bound to principles and limits to confidentiality outlined 
by their regulatory body. All facilitators will sign a research confidentiality agreement prior to 
their involvement in the study.  
Identifying information: The research coordinator, research assistant, and Dr. Melissa Kimber 
will have access to identifying information in the participant tracking document. The participant 
tracking document that matches all participant unique IDs will be stored on a fully encrypted 
document on a secure McMaster server. 
The research assistant will need access to the participant tracking document to contact 
participants for quantitative surveys and screening calls. The research coordinator will need the 
participant tracking document to coordinate the training component with participants and 
qualitative data collection.  
The VEGA team will have access to identifying information, specifically participants’ names 
and contact information. This information will be required for registration for online modules 
and monitoring participant’s completion of them.  
Quantitative data: The research assistant will monitor the collection of quantitative data. The 
research coordinator will oversee storage, quality control, and management of de-identified 
research data (i.e., data collected by surveys and labelled with the unique participant ID only). 
Requests for data for analyses (e.g. by Research Team Members, graduate trainees) will be 
managed by the research coordinator and overseen by the PI, including Dr. Melissa Kimber. 
Qualitative data: The research coordinator will monitor the collection of qualitative data via 
audio files and coordinate the transcription of audio files to be completed as rapidly as possible 
by a professional transcription service who has extensive experience working with the research 
team. The research coordinator will oversee storage, quality control, and management of de-
identified qualitative data (i.e., transcripts). Requests for data for analyses (e.g. by Research 
Team Members, graduate trainees) will be managed by the research coordinator and overseen by 
the PIs, including Dr. Melissa Kimber. 
 
6.2.2. Data Collection and Storage 
Data collection will be completed by authorized study site personnel designated by the lead PI.  
 

Page 22 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
Quantitative data will be collected in electronic format using REDCap, a secure, web-based 
application used for building and managing online databases and surveys. The survey will be 
hosted in a dedicated server for McMaster and REDCap data is stored on Canadian servers. All 
data will be de-identified at the point of collection. De-identified quantitative data will be 
downloaded from REDCap and stored on a secure McMaster server.  
 
Qualitative data will be collected using the audio recording feature of Zoom, with video turned 
off. The audio file will be password-protected and stored on a secure McMaster server until 
transcription is complete. Once the audio files are transcribed and identifying information is 
removed, the research coordinator will oversee the destroying of audio files. The transcriptions 
will be saved as password-protected files with only the participant ID attached to them. All audio 
files will be deleted within one month of data collection completion for this study.  
 
Study data and records will be maintained for 10 years post completion of the final study report 
or publication of the primary outcomes and then securely destroyed. Data will be kept securely in 
password-protected files on secure McMaster servers, or in locked storage cabinets at the Offord 
Centre for Child Studies. All identifying information including communication records (emails, 
telephone logs) will be destroyed one month after all data collection is complete. The PI will be 
responsible for ensuring secure storage and disposal of confidential records.   
 
 
References 
 
1. Afifi TO, Taillieu T, Zamorski MA, Turner S, Cheung K, Sareen J. Association of Child Abuse 
Exposure With Suicidal Ideation, Suicide Plans, and Suicide Attempts in Military Personnel and 
the General Population in Canada. (2016). JAMA Psychiatry, 73(3): 229-238. 
2. Afifi TO, Sareen J, Taillieu T, Stewart-Tufescu A, Mota N, Bolton SL, et al. (2021). Association 
of Child Maltreatment and Deployment-related Traumatic Experiences with Mental Disorders in 
Active Duty Service Members and Veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces: Association de la 
Maltraitance des Enfants et des Experiences Traumatisantes Liees au Deploiement Avec les 
Troubles Mentaux Chez les Membres du Service Actif et Les Anciens Combattants des Forces 
Armees Canadiennes. Can J Psychiatry. 706743720987086. 
3. Marshall AD, Panuzio J, Taft CT. (2005). Intimate partner violence among military veterans and 
active duty servicemen. Clin Psychol Rev. 25(7): 862-876. 
4. Slep AMS, Foran HM, Heyman RE, Snarr JD, Program UAFFA. (2011). Risk factors for 
clinically significant intimate partner violence among active-duty members. Journal of Marriage 
and Family. 73(2):486-501. 
5. Sparrow K, Kwan J, Howard L, Fear N, MacManus D. (2017). Systematic review of mental 
health disorders and intimate partner violence victimisation among military populations. Soc 
Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 52(9): 1059-1080. 
6. Griffith J, C JB. Deployment Experiences and Suicidal Behaviors Related to Interpersonal 
Violence Perpetration Among Army National Guard Soldiers. (2020). Violence Vict. 35(6): 841-
860. 
7. Sparrow K, Dickson H, Kwan J, Howard L, Fear N, MacManus D. (2020). Prevalence of Self-
Reported Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among Military Personnel: A Systematic 
Review and Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 21(3):586-609. 

Page 23 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
8. Colishaw S, Freijah I, D. K, Sbisa A, Mulligan A, Notarianni MA, et al. (2021). Intimate partner 
violence (IPV) in military and veteran populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 
population-based studies of prevalence.  
9. Zamorski MA, Wiens-Kinkaid ME. (2013). Cross-sectional prevalence survey of intimate partner 
violence perpetration and victimization in Canadian military personnel. BMC Public Health. 
13:1019. 
10. Dursun S. The homefront: family well-being and military readiness. 
11. MacMillan HL, Kimber M, Stewart DE. (2020). Intimate Partner Violence: Recognizing and 
Responding Safely. JAMA. 324(12):1201-1202. 
12. Stewart DE, MacMillan H, Kimber M. Recognizing and Responding to Intimate Partner 
Violence: An Update. (2021). Can J Psychiatry. 66(1):71-106. 
13. Beynon CE, Gutmanis IA, Tutty LM, Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. (2012). Why physicians and 
nurses ask (or don't) about partner violence: a qualitative analysis. BMC Public Health. 12:473. 
14. Kimber M, McTavish JR, Couturier J, Le Grange D, Lock J, MacMillan HL. (2019). Identifying 
and responding to child maltreatment when delivering family-based treatment-A qualitative 
study. Int J Eat Disord. 52(3):292-8. 
15. Kimber M, McTavish JR, Luo C, Couturier J, Dimitropoulos G, MacMillan H. (2019). 
Mandatory reporting of child maltreatment when delivering family-based treatment for eating 
disorders: A framework analysis of practitioner experiences. Child Abuse Negl. 88:118-128. 
16. McTavish JR, Kimber M, Devries K, Colombini M, MacGregor JCD, Wathen CN, et al. (2017). 
Mandated reporters' experiences with reporting child maltreatment: a meta-synthesis of 
qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 7(10):e013942. 
17. Kimber M, Cavanagh A, Napoleone S, Freedman D, Friedmann I, MacMillan H. Family 
Violence in Medical Education: Qualitative Perspectives from Medical Students. In Preparation. 
18. Alnasser Y, Albijadi A, Abdullah W, Aldabeeb D, Alomair A, Alsaddiqi S, et al. (2017). Child 
maltreatment between knowledge, attitude and beliefs among Saudi pediatricians, pediatric 
residency trainees and medical students. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 16:7-13. 
19. Inanici SY, Celik E, Hidiroglu S, Ozdemir M, Inanici MA. (2020). Factors associated with 
physicians' assessment and management of child abuse and neglect: A mixed method study. 
Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 73:101972. 
20. Flaherty EG, Sege R, Binns HJ, Mattson CL, Christoffel KK. (2000). Health care providers' 
experience reporting child abuse in the primary care setting. Pediatric Practice Research Group. 
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 154(5):489-493. 
21. Flaherty EG, Sege R, Price LL, Christoffel KK, Norton DP, O'Connor KG. (2006). Pediatrician 
characteristics associated with child abuse identification and reporting: results from a national 
survey of pediatricians. Child Maltreat. 11(4):361-9. 
22. Flaherty EG, Sege R, Mattson CL, Binns HJ. (2002). Assessment of suspicion of abuse in the 
primary care setting. Ambul Pediatr. 2(2):120-6. 
23. Regnaut O, Jeu-Steenhouwer M, Manaouil C, Gignon M. (2015). Risk factors for child abuse: 
levels of knowledge and difficulties in family medicine. A mixed method study. BMC Res Notes. 
8:620. 
24. Flaherty EG, Sege R. Barriers to physician identification and reporting of child abuse. (2005). 
Pediatric Annals. 34(5):349-56. 
25. Hester M. (2011). The three planent model: Towards an understanding of contradictions in 
approaches to women and children's safety in contexts of domestic violence. The British Journal 
of Social Work. 41:837-853. 
26. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. (2017). Desiging and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd 
ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications. 
27. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 2nd 
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. 

Page 24 of 24 
Centre of Excellence VEGA Training and Research Project 
May 12 2023   V9. 
28. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Thabane L, Hopewell S, Coleman CL, et al. (2016). 
Defining Feasibility and Pilot Studies in Preparation for Randomised Controlled Trials: 
Development of a Conceptual Framework. PLoS One. 11(3):e0150205. 
29. Pelletier, H.L. (2014). The Efficacy of Educating Medical Students on How to Identify and 
Report Suspected Child Maltreatment, Psychology. University of Toledo: Online.  
30. Pelletier, H.L. Knox, M. (2017). Incorporating Child Maltreatment Training into Medical School 
Curricula. J Child Adolesc Trauma, 2017. 10(3): 267-274. 
31. Connor, P.D., Nouer, S.S., Mackey, S.N., Tipton, N.G., Lloyd, A.K. (2011). Psychometric 
properties of an intimate partner violence tool for health care students. J Interpers Violence, 
26(5): 1012-1035.  
32. Short, L.M., Alpert, E., Harris, J.M., Surprenant, Z.J. (2006). A tool for measuring physician 
readiness to manage intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med. 30(2): 173-180. 
33. Ayling, N.J. (2019). Measuring Early Childhood Educations' Self-Efficacy for Mandatory 
Reporting of Child Maltreatment, School of Childhood and Inclusive Education. Queensland 
University of Technology: Online. 
34. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales, Self-efficacy Beliefs of 
Adolescents, F.P.T. Urdan, Editor. Information Age Publishing: Greenwich, CT. 
35. Dubowitz, H. (2014). World Perspectives on Child Abuse. International Society for the 
Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (ISPCAN): Aurora, CO.  
36. Mathews, B., Kenny, M.C. (2008). Mandatory reporting legislation in the United States, Canada, 
and Australia: a cross-jurisdictional review of key features, differences, and issues. Child 
Maltreat. 13(1): 50-63. 
37. Vogus, T.J., Cull, M.J., Hengelbrok, N.E., Modell, S.J., Epstein, R.A. (2016). Assessing safety 
culture in child welfare: Evidence from Tennessee. Children and Youth Services Review. 65:94-
103.  
38. Vogus, T.J., Sutcliffe, K.M. (2007). The Safety Organizing Scale: development and validation of 
a behavioral measure of safety culture in hospital nursing units. Med Care. 45(1): 46-54. 
39. Goldman GD. (2009). Initial validation of a Brief Individual Readiness for Change Scale 
(BIRCS) for use with addiction program staff practitioners. Journal of Social Work Practice in 
the Addictions. 9(2):184-203.  
40. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. (2004). The truly remarkable universality of half a 
standard deviation: confirmation through another look. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 
4(5):581-5. 
41. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: 
Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 15(3):398-405. 
42. Crowe M, Inder M, Porter R. (2015). Conducting qualitative research in mental health: Thematic 
and content analyses. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 49(7):616-23. 
43. Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. (2015). Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative 
Results in Health Science Mixed Methods Research Through Joint Displays. Ann Fam Med. 
13(6):554-561.