Dataset Information

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or perpetrator? Does it make a difference?

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To differentiate between forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) (victim only, perpetrator only, or participating in reciprocal violence) and examine risk profiles and pregnancy outcomes.

Design

Prospective.

Setting

Washington, DC, July 2001 to October 2003.

Sample

A total of 1044 high-risk African-American pregnant women who participated in a randomised controlled trial to address IPV, depression, smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure.

Methods

Multivariable linear and logistic regression.

Main outcome measures

Low and very low birthweight, preterm and very preterm birth.

Results

Five percent of women were victims only, 12% were perpetrators only, 27% participated in reciprocal violence and 55% reported no IPV. Women reporting reciprocal violence in the past year were more likely to drink, use illicit drugs and experience environmental tobacco smoke exposure and were less likely to be very happy about their pregnancies. Women reporting any type of IPV were more likely to be depressed than those reporting no IPV. Women experiencing reciprocal violence reported the highest levels of depression. Women who were victims of IPV were more likely to give birth prematurely and deliver low-birthweight and very-low-birthweight infants.

Conclusions

We conclude that women were at highest risk for pregnancy risk factors when they participated in reciprocal violence and so might be at higher risk for long-term consequences, but women who were victims of IPV were more likely to show proximal negative outcomes like preterm birth and low birthweight infants. Different types of interventions may be needed for these two forms of IPV.

SUBMITTER: Shneyderman Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3775877 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or perpetrator? Does it make a difference?

Shneyderman Y Y Kiely M M

BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 20130621 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To differentiate between forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) (victim only, perpetrator only, or participating in reciprocal violence) and examine risk profiles and pregnancy outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective.<h4>Setting</h4>Washington, DC, July 2001 to October 2003.<h4>Sample</h4>A total of 1044 high-risk African-American pregnant women who participated in a randomised controlled trial to address IPV, depression, smoking and environmental tobacco smoke exposure.<h4>Meth ...[more]

PMID: 23786367

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy can lead to negative consequences for both the mother and offspring. Although IPV is recognized as a worldwide public health issue, its prevalence is considered to be underestimated because cases are likely underreported, suggesting that there might be unmeasured IPV. The aim of this study was to develop an instrument to detect IPV in pregnant women. Methods: A total of 6,590 women in Aichi prefecture, Japan, who took part in a 3 or 4 month infant health checkup program, participated in the study. Questionnaires assessing history of IPV during pregnancy (physical abuse and verbal abuse), maternal characteristics, partner's characteristics, and household characteristics were mailed to women before, or distributed at, the checkup. Women returned the questionnaires to the checkup sites or mailed them back to the health centers. A prediction model for history of IPV was then generated using potential risk factors selected based on the literature. Results: Among 6,530 women who responded to either question on IPV during pregnancy (response rate = 67.3%), the rate of participants who experienced any IPV during pregnancy was 11.1% (physical IPV = 1.2%; verbal IPV = 10.8%). Multiple logistic regression analyses showed that maternal age (<25 years old), multiparity, history of artificial abortion, negative feelings when the pregnancy was confirmed (e.g., confused), having no one to provide support during pregnancy, having relationship problems with their partner, paternal smoking during pregnancy, and difficult financial status were associated with any abuse from the partner. Based on the analysis, the Intimate Partner Violence during Pregnancy Instrument (IPVPI) was developed, comprising of eight questions to detect unmeasured IPV in pregnant women, and showed moderate predictive power (area under receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.719, 95% confidence interval: 0.698 to 0.740) ranging from 0 to 16 with a cut-off point of 2 (sensitivity = 79.5%, specificity = 47.1%). Conclusion: The IPVPI, which allows to ask indirect questions rather that asking directly about experience of IPV, might be helpful to detect unmeasured IPV in pregnant women in fields of primary healthcare and obstetrics. Further research longitudinal studies are needed to improve the sensitivity and specificity of the IPVPI.

Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) around the time of pregnancy is a widespread global health problem with many negative consequences. Nevertheless, a lot remains unclear about which interventions are effective and might be adopted in the perinatal care context.ObjectiveThe objective is to provide a clear overview of the existing evidence on effectiveness of interventions for IPV around the time of pregnancy.MethodsFollowing databases PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched and expanded by hand search. The search was limited to English peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to 2013. This review includes all types of interventions aiming to reduce IPV around the time of pregnancy as a primary outcome, and as secondary outcomes to enhance physical and/or mental health, quality of life, safety behavior, help seeking behavior, and/or social support.ResultsWe found few randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for IPV around the time of pregnancy. Moreover, the nine studies identified did not produce strong evidence that certain interventions are effective. Nonetheless, home visitation programs and some multifaceted counseling interventions did produce promising results. Five studies reported a statistically significant decrease in physical, sexual and/or psychological partner violence (odds ratios from 0.47 to 0.92). Limited evidence was found for improved mental health, less postnatal depression, improved quality of life, fewer subsequent miscarriages, and less low birth weight/prematurity. None of the studies reported any evidence of a negative or harmful effect of the interventions.Conclusions and implicationsStrong evidence of effective interventions for IPV during the perinatal period is lacking, but some interventions show promising results. Additional large-scale, high-quality research is essential to provide further evidence about the effect of certain interventions and clarify which interventions should be adopted in the perinatal care context.

Project description:Intimate partner violence (IPV) is sexual, psychological and physical coercive acts used against persons by intimate partners. When IPV occurs during pregnancy (IPVp), it can result in adverse maternal and pregnancy outcomes. No policy nor practice direction exists to address the rates and risk factors of IPVp in Kenya. Determining the prevalence, types and determinants of IPVp in Western Kenya would aid in the identification of pregnant women affected by and/or at risk of IPVp, as well as informing the development of policy, practices and programmes to support preventive interventions. In this cross-sectional study of 369 women who had given birth at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, participants were recruited using systematic sampling and data collected via structured questionnaires adopted from the WHO Violence Against Women Instrument. Associations were made in relation to physical or sexual violence and psychological violence. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between determinants and occurrence of IPVp. The overall prevalence of IPVp was 34.1%. Prevalence of physical or sexual violence was 22.8%. Psychological violence emerged as the most common (27.4%) form of IPVp. A lower than tertiary level of education and previous experience of IPV were individually associated with physical/sexual IPVp, whereas psychological IPVp was associated with previous experience of IPV and was prevented by the intimate partner having formal employment. Preterm birth rates were found to be higher than the country's rates. The prevalence rates of IPVp are high in Western Kenya. Strategies that address the promotion of respectful, nonviolent relationships and that interrupt the development of risk factors are required. Policies (clinical guidelines) targeting prevention of IPVp and screening and the identification of at-risk women and survivors of IPVp are needed urgently. Primary prevention through interrupting the occurrence of predisposing factors is key in addressing IPVp.

Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) before and during pregnancy is associated with a broad range of adverse health outcomes. Describing the extent and the evolution of IPV is a crucial step in developing interventions to reduce the health impact of IPV.The objectives are to study the prevalence of psychological abuse, as well as physical & sexual violence, and to provide insight into the evolution of IPV 12 months before and during pregnancy.MethodsBetween June 2010 and October 2012, a cross-sectional study was conducted in 11 antenatal care clinics in Belgium. Consenting pregnant women were asked to complete a questionnaire (available in Dutch, French and English) in a separate room. Ethical clearance was obtained in all participating hospitals.ResultsThe overall percentage of IPV was 14.3% (95% CI: 12.7 - 16.0) 12 months before pregnancy and 10.6% (95% CI: 9.2 - 12.1) during pregnancy. Physical partner violence before as well as during pregnancy was reported by 2.5% (95% CI: 1.7 - 3.3) of the respondents (n = 1894), sexual violence by 0.9% (95% CI 0.5 - 1.4), and psychological abuse by 14.9% (95% CI: 13.3 - 16.7). Risk factors identified for IPV were being single or divorced, having a low level of education, and choosing another language than Dutch to fill out the questionnaire. The adjusted analysis showed that physical partner violence (aOR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.22 - 0.56) and psychological partner abuse (aOR 0.7, 95% CI: 0.63 - 0.79) were significantly lower during pregnancy compared to the period of 12 months before pregnancy. The difference between both time periods is greater for physical partner violence (65%) compared to psychological partner abuse (30%). The analysis of the frequency data showed a similarly significant evolution for physical partner violence and psychological partner abuse, but not for sexual violence.ConclusionThe IPV prevalence rates in our study are slightly lower than what can be found in other Western studies, but even so IPV is to be considered a prevalent problem before and during pregnancy. We found evidence, however, that physical partner violence and psychological partner abuse are significantly lower during pregnancy.

Dataset Information

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or perpetrator? Does it make a difference?

Objectives

Design

Setting

Sample

Methods

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or perpetrator? Does it make a difference?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets