CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Mootz JJ, Spencer CM, Ettelbrick J, Kann B, Fortunato Dos Santos P, Palmer M, Stith SM. Trauma Violence Abuse 2022; ePub(ePub): ePub. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2022, SAGE Publishing) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
36373646 |
|
Abstract |
Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) incurs significant public health consequences. Understanding risk markers can accelerate prevention and response efforts, important in settings like Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where resources are scarce. In this study, four databases were searched to identify studies that examined risk markers for male-to-female physical IPV. With application of the socioecological model, we analyzed 11 risk markers for male physical IPV perpetration (with 71 effect sizes) and 16 risk markers for female physical IPV victimization (with 131 effect sizes) in SSA from 51 studies. For male IPV perpetration, we found medium-to-large effect sizes for six risk markers: perpetrating emotional abuse and sexual IPV, witnessing parental IPV, being abused as a child, cohabitating (not married), and exhibiting controlling behaviors. We found small effect sizes for substance use. Employment, age, marital status, and education were not significant risk markers. For female IPV victimization, a medium effect size was found for post-traumatic stress symptoms. Small effect sizes were found for reporting depressive symptoms, being abused as a child, witnessing parental IPV, and reporting drug and alcohol use. Rural residence, approval of violence, length of relationship, income, education, employment, age, marital status, and religiosity were not significant risk markers. Language: en |
|
Keywords |
intimate partner violence; domestic violence; Africa; low- and middle-income countries; risk marker; socioecological model |