scholarly journals Intimate partner violence against young women: prevalence and associated factors in Europe

2018 ◽  
Vol 72 (7) ◽  
pp. 611-616 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belén Sanz-Barbero ◽  
Patricia López Pereira ◽  
Gregorio Barrio ◽  
Carmen Vives-Cases
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
European Union ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Young Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Individual Characteristics ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
The European Union

BackgroundThe magnitude of intimate partner violence (IPV) in young women is a source of increasing concern. The prevalence of IPV has not been analysed in Europe as a whole. The objective was to assess the prevalence and main characteristics of experiencing physical and/or sexual and psychological-only IPV among young women in the European Union and to identify individual and contextual associated risk factors.MethodsWe analysed a cross-sectional subsample of 5976 ever-partnered women aged 18–29 years from the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights Violence Against Women Survey, 2012. The main outcomes were current physical and/or sexual IPV and lifetime psychological-only IPV. Risk factors were assessed by the prevalence ratio (PR) from multilevel Poisson regression models.ResultsCurrent prevalence of physical and/or sexual IPV was 6.1%, lifetime prevalence of psychological-only IPV was 28.7%. Having suffered physical and/or sexual abuse by an adult before age 15 was the strongest risk factor for IPV (PR: 2.9 for physical and/or sexual IPV, PR: 1.5 for psychological-only IPV). Other individual risk factors were: perceived major difficulties in living within their household income (PR: 2.6), having children (PR: 1.8) and age 18–24 years (PR: 1.5) for physical/sexual IPV and immigration background for psychological-only IPV (PR: 1.4). Living in countries with a higher prevalence of binge drinking or early school dropout was positively associated with IPV.ConclusionsFindings show that the fight against violence in young women should consider individual characteristics, childhood experiences of abuse and also structural interventions including reduction of alcohol consumption and improvement in the education-related indicators.

scholarly journals Psychological intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: a cross-national invariance study

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Martín-Fernández ◽  
Enrique Gracia ◽  
Marisol Lila
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Partner Violence Against Women ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Cross National

Abstract Background Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is a worldwide public health problem. One of the most frequent forms of this type of violence in western societies is psychological IPVAW. According to the European Union (EU) Fundamental Rights Association (FRA) the prevalence of psychological IPVAW in the EU is 43%. However, the measurement invariance of the measure addressing psychological IPVAW in this survey has not yet been assessed. Methods The aim of this study is to ensure the cross-national comparability of this measure, by evaluating its measurement invariance across the 28 EU countries in a sample of 37,724 women, and to examine how the levels of this type of violence are distributed across the EU. Results Our results showed that the psychological IPVAW measure presented adequate psychometric properties (reliability and validity) in all countries. A latent structure of one factor was supported and scalar invariance was established in all countries. The average levels of psychological IPVAW were higher in countries like Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden compared to the rest of the EU countries. In many of the other countries the levels of this type of violence overlapped. Conclusion Our findings underlined the importance of using appropriate statistical methods to make valid cross-national comparisons in large population surveys.

scholarly journals Describing Intimate partner violence against ever-partnered women in Europe and perpetrator’s characteristics. Results from the Violence against women EU-wide survey

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Barbier ◽  
P Chariot ◽  
T Lefèvre
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Lifetime Prevalence ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Lower Education Level ◽  
High Risk Populations ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Available data on intimate partner violence (IPV) are derived from asynchronous and heterogeneous studies. Definition of IPV varies, is often partial, and only a limited number of potential determinants are considered. The Violence against women survey collected data consistently and simultaneously on all dimensions of IPV. Women were also asked about the perpetrator's characteristics. The present study aims to describe prevalence of physical, sexual and psychological IPV against European women, and reported perpetrator's characteristics. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with randomly selected women aged between 18 and 74, by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. IPV was defined by a positive answer to at least one question about violence perpetrated by current or ex-partner. Among the 40357 ever-partnered women, lifetime prevalence of overall IPV was 51.7% (95%CI 51.2-52.2). Prevalence of physical, sexual and psychological IPV were respectively 20.0% (19.6-20.4), 8.4% (8.2-8.7) and 48.5% (48.1-49.0). Partners' or ex-partners characteristics associated with IPV perpetration included: lower education level, unemployment or staying at home, earning less than the woman, a relationship lasting between 1 to 10 years, high frequency of drunkenness, and perpetration of other type of violence. Lifetime prevalence of IPV in EU is high and likely to be underestimated. Specific trajectories and profiles of perpetrators should be characterized to ground the interventions. The risk of underreporting violence should be addressed as it jeopardizes the efficacy of interventions for prevention. They may be undifferentiated and differentiated, targeted and time-sensitive, respectively dedicated to general audience and high-risk populations.

Patterns of intimate partner violence against women in Europe: prevalence and associated risk factors

2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-214987
Author(s):  
Zuzana Podaná
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Violence Against Women ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Individual Risk ◽  
Coercive Control ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Intimate Terrorism

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex phenomenon and some research suggests that there are qualitatively distinct IPV types. However, little is known about the risk factors associated with different IPV types.MethodsData from Violence against women: an European Union (EU)-wide survey, conducted by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights was used. Latent class analysis (LCA) was employed to identify distinct IPV patterns based on the intensity of eight forms of violence by current partners (n=30 675). Multilevel multinomial logistic regression was used to examine individual and country-level risk factors associated with the outcome IPV patterns.ResultsA five-class solution was selected based on the LCA results. Two classes encompassed severe coercive IPV: the intimate terrorism class (1.5%) also comprised extensive physical violence whereas the high coercive control class (2.0%) did not. The partner’s alcohol abuse, violent behaviour outside the relationship and the woman’s abuse in childhood were the main individual factors positively associated with IPV. The country’s gender equality levels were negatively associated with the odds of experiencing intimate terrorism (adjusted OR, aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.56) and high coercive control (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) versus no IPV. Although the effects of most individual risk factors were found universally for all IPV patterns, the strongest associations were typically revealed for the intimate terrorism pattern.ConclusionThe results support the importance of coercive control as a factor differentiating between IPV types and also highlight the need to consider IPV typologies in research. Policy implications of the findings are discussed.

Factors Distinguishing Reciprocal Versus Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Across Time and Reporter

2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110014
Author(s):  
Doris F. Pu ◽  
Christina M. Rodriguez ◽  
Marina D. Dimperio
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Transition To Parenthood ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Couple Functioning ◽  
Female Perpetrators ◽  
Over Time

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is often conceptualized as occurring unilaterally, reciprocal or bidirectional violence is actually the most prevalent form of IPV. The current study assessed physical IPV experiences in couples and evaluated risk and protective factors that may be differentially associated with reciprocal and nonreciprocal IPV concurrently and over time. As part of a multi-wave longitudinal study, women and men reported on the frequency of their IPV perpetration and victimization three times across the transition to parenthood. Participants also reported on risk factors related to personal adjustment, psychosocial resources, attitudes toward gender role egalitarianism, and sociodemographic characteristics at each wave. Participants were classified into one of four IPV groups (reciprocal violence, male perpetrators only, female perpetrators only, and no violence) based on their self-report and based on a combined report, which incorporated both partners’ reports of IPV for a maximum estimate of violence. Women and men were analyzed separately, as both can be perpetrators and/or victims of IPV. Cross-sectional analyses using self-reported IPV data indicated that IPV groups were most consistently distinguished by their levels of couple satisfaction, across gender; psychological distress also appeared to differentiate IPV groups, although somewhat less consistently. When combined reports of IPV were used, sociodemographic risk markers (i.e., age, income, and education) in addition to couple functioning were among the most robust factors differentiating IPV groups concurrently, across gender. In longitudinal analyses, sociodemographic vulnerabilities were again among the most consistent factors differentiating subsequent IPV groups over time. Several gender differences were also found, suggesting that different risk factors (e.g., women’s social support and men’s emotion regulation abilities) may need to be targeted in interventions to identify, prevent, and treat IPV among women and men.

scholarly journals Individual and community-level risk factors of women’s acceptance of intimate partner violence in Ethiopia: multilevel analysis of 2011 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emiru Merdassa Atomssa ◽  
Araya Abrha Medhanyie ◽  
Girmatsion Fisseha
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Health Survey ◽  
Women's Education ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Significant Risk ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Level ◽  
State Region ◽  
The Individual

Abstract Background The prevalence of Intimate partner violence (IPV) is higher in societies with higher acceptance of norms that support IPV. In Ethiopia, the proportion of women’s acceptance of IPV was 69%, posing a central challenge in preventing IPV. The main objective of this study was to assess the individual and community-level factors associated with women’s acceptance of IPV. Methods Two-level mixed-effects logistic regression was applied to the 2011 Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey data. A total of 16,366 women nested in the 596 clusters were included in the analysis. Results The acceptability of the IPV was estimated to be 69%. Among the individual-level factors: women’s education with secondary and above (AOR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.29–0.52), partner’s education secondary and above (AOR = 0.71; 95% CI 0.54–0.82), women aged 35–49 years (AOR = 0.67; 95% CI 0.54–0.82), fully empowered in household level decision making (AOR = 0.67; 95% CI0.54–0.81), literate (AOR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62–0.92), and perceived existence of law that prevents IPV (AOR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.50–0.63) were significantly associated with women’s acceptance of IPV. Similarly, rural residence (AOR = 1.93; 95% CI 1.53–2.43) and living in the State region (AOR = 2.37; 95% CI 1.81–3.10) were significantly associated with the women’s acceptance of IPV among the community-level factors. Conclusion Both individual and community-level factors were significant risk factors for the acceptability of intimate partner violence. Women's education, women's age, women’s empowerment, partner education level, perceived existence of the law, and literacy were among individual factors. State region and residence were among community-level risk factors significantly associated women’s acceptance of IPV.

Psychosocial and substance-use risk factors for intimate partner violence

2005 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sherry Lipsky ◽  
Raul Caetano ◽  
Craig A. Field ◽  
Gregory L. Larkin
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Substance Use ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document