Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
New York State Psychiatric Institute, USA.
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023 Dec;24(5):3433-3444. doi: 10.1177/15248380221129589. Epub 2022 Nov 14.
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. Findings highlight opportunities for screening and intervention at the couple level, show the need to test and incorporate interventions for IPV in mental health treatment, and emphasize the importance of further research on sociodemographic risk markers and the interventions that target them.
亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的暴露会带来严重的公共卫生后果。了解风险标志物可以加速预防和应对工作,在资源匮乏的撒哈拉以南非洲(SSA)等地区尤为重要。在这项研究中,我们搜索了四个数据库,以确定研究男性对女性身体 IPV 的风险标志物的研究。我们应用社会生态学模型,分析了 SSA 51 项研究中 11 个男性身体 IPV 实施的风险标志物(71 个效应量)和 16 个女性身体 IPV 受害的风险标志物(131 个效应量)。对于男性 IPV 的实施,我们发现六个风险标志物具有中到大的效应量:实施情感虐待和性 IPV、目睹父母 IPV、儿童期受虐待、同居(未结婚)和表现出控制行为。我们发现物质使用的效应量较小。就业、年龄、婚姻状况和教育程度不是显著的风险标志物。对于女性 IPV 的受害,创伤后应激症状发现了中等效应量。报告抑郁症状、儿童期受虐待、目睹父母 IPV 和报告药物和酒精使用的效应量较小。农村居住、暴力认可、关系持续时间、收入、教育、就业、年龄、婚姻状况和宗教信仰不是显著的风险标志物。研究结果强调了在夫妻层面进行筛查和干预的机会,表明需要测试和纳入精神健康治疗中的 IPV 干预措施,并强调进一步研究社会人口学风险标志物和针对这些标志物的干预措施的重要性。