Measuring intimate partner violence among male and female farmworkers in San Diego County, Ca.

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael R. Duke ◽  
Carol B. Cunradi
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
San Diego ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
San Diego County ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Female Farmworkers

scholarly journals The Risk of Partner Aggression Research: Impact of Laboratory Couples Conflict Protocols on Participants

2006 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 483-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniela J. Owen ◽  
Richard E. Heyman ◽  
Amy M. Smith Slep
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Partner Aggression ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Impact Measure ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Male To Female ◽  
Couples Conflict

The impact of male-to-female intimate partner violence (IPV) research on participants is unknown. A measure of impact was given to participants in an IPV study to assess systematically the impact of completing questionnaires, engaging in conflict conversations, and being interviewed individually about anger escalation and de-escalation during the conversations. Participants completed a six-question, Likert-scaled impact measure. Both male and female participants rated the impact of the study as helpful to them personally and to their relationships. Female participants rated different segments of the study as more helpful to themselves and their relationships, while male participants did not find any segment of the study to have a different impact than other segments.

Intimate partner violence and disordered eating among male and female veterans

2018 ◽  
Vol 260 ◽  
pp. 98-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brooke A. Bartlett ◽  
Katherine M. Iverson ◽  
Karen S. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Disordered Eating ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Female Veterans ◽  
Male And Female

scholarly journals Intimate partner violence (IPV) in male and female orthopaedic trauma patients: a multicentre, cross-sectional prevalence study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e046164
Author(s):  
Samantha Downie ◽  
Iuliana Kanya ◽  
Kim Madden ◽  
Mohit Bhandari ◽  
Arpit C Jariwala
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Primary Outcome Measure ◽  
Trauma Patients ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
The Past

ObjectivesIdentify the proportion of patients attending fracture clinics who had suffered intimate partner violence (IPV) within the past year.DesignPowered cross-sectional study using validated participant self-reported questionnaires.Setting and participantsAdult trauma patients (no gender/age exclusions) attending one of three Scottish adult fracture clinics over 16-month period (from October 2016 to January 2018).Primary outcome measureNumber of participants answering ‘yes’ to the Woman Abuse Screening Tool question: ‘In your current relationship over the past twelve months, has your partner ever abused you physically/emotionally/sexually?’ResultsOf 336 respondents, 46% (156/336 known) were women with 65% aged over 40 (212/328 known). The overall prevalence of IPV within the preceding 12 months was 12% 39/336) for both male and female patients. The lifetime prevalence of IPV among respondents was 20% (68/336). 38% of patients who had experienced IPV within the past 12 months had been physically abused (11/29). None of the patients were being seen for an injury caused by abuse. Two-thirds of respondents thought that staff should ask routinely about IPV (55%, 217/336), but only 5% had previously been asked about abuse (18/336).ConclusionsThis is the first study worldwide investigating the prevalence of IPV in fracture clinics for both male and female patients. 12-month prevalence of IPV in fracture clinic patients is significant and not affected by gender in this study. Patients appear willing to disclose abuse within this setting and are supportive of staff asking about abuse. This presents an opportunity to identify those at risk within this vulnerable population.

Social Norms for Intimate Partner Violence

2013 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 959-967 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tricia H. Witte ◽  
Mazheruddin M. Mulla
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
College Campuses ◽  
Female College Students ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Actual Prevalence

This study investigated perceived descriptive norms (i.e., perceived prevalence) for intimate partner violence (IPV) among college students. Male and female college students were asked to estimate the prevalence of IPV for same-sex “typical students” on their campus. Perpetrators of IPV made higher estimates than nonperpetrators. Both perpetrators and nonperpetrators overestimated the prevalence of IPV when compared to actual prevalence rates. Findings lend support for using social-norms-based prevention programs on college campuses.

3 Drug-facilitated intimate partner violence among stimulant-using women in SAN DIEGO, CA

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. A1.3-A1
Author(s):  
Hitomi D. Hayashi ◽  
T Ludwig-Barron Natasha ◽  
Lindsey J. White ◽  
Monica D. Ulibarn ◽  
Jamila K. Stockman
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
San Diego ◽  
Intimate Partner

Social Norms for Intimate Partner Violence: A Replication With College Students

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (5) ◽  
pp. 829-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tricia H. Witte ◽  
Christine L. Hackman ◽  
Mazheruddin M. Mulla
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Female College Students ◽  
Prevalence Rates ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Prevalence Estimates ◽  
Actual Prevalence

This study replicated prior research on college students’ perceived descriptive norms (i.e., prevalence estimates) for intimate partner violence (IPV). In this study, male and female college students were instructed to estimate the prevalence of physical forms of IPV for “typical students” of their same gender on campus. Perpetrators of IPV—both male and female—made higher estimates than nonperpetrators. When compared to actual prevalence rates, both perpetrators and nonperpetrators overestimated the prevalence of IPV on campus. Findings have implications for prevention programs that address social norms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document