| Literature DB >> 19765299 |
Mariano Salazar1, Eliette Valladares, Ann Ohman, Ulf Högberg.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although reducing intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health problem, few longitudinal studies in developing countries have assessed ways to end such abuse. To this end, this paper aims to analyze individual, family, community and societal factors that facilitate reducing IPV.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19765299 PMCID: PMC2754464 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-9-350
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Figure 1IPV patterns when women were contacted at follow-up. A community-based longitudinal study (2002-2007), León, Nicaragua (n = 398)
Women's baseline and follow-up characteristics by IPV patterns (continued abuse vs. ending and never abused)*, n = 370.
| Women's age at follow-up (years) | 18-23 | 31 | (33) | 36 | (27) | 39 | (28) |
| 24-27 | 29 | (31) | 36 | (27) | 36 | (25) | |
| 28-31 | 19 | (20) | 31 | (23) | 27 | (19) | |
| 32-50 | 15 | (16) | 32 | (23) | 39 | (28) | |
| Marital status baseline | Partner | 86 | (91) | 113 | (84) | 112 | (79) |
| Alone | 8 | (9) | 22 | (16) | 29 | (21)† | |
| Marital status follow-up | Same partner | 82 | (87) | 101 | (75) | 112 | (79) |
| New partner/alone | 12 | (13) | 34 | (25)† | 29 | (21) | |
| Employment follow-up | Yes | 32 | (34) | 41 | (30) | 50 | (36) |
| No | 62 | (66) | 94 | (70) | 91 | (64) | |
| Women's education | > 3rd grade | 38 | (40) | 65 | (48) | 95 | (67) |
| ≤ 3rd grade | 56 | (60) | 70 | (52) | 46 | (33)† | |
| Parity | 1 | 25 | (27) | 44 | (33) | 69 | (49) |
| 2 or more | 69 | (73) | 91 | (67) | 72 | (51)† | |
| Residency | Rural | 32 | (34) | 68 | (50) | 22 | (16) |
| Urban | 62 | (66) | 67 | (50)† | 119 | (84)† | |
| Socioeconomic status | Non poor | 36 | (38) | 46 | (34) | 71 | (51) |
| Poor | 58 | (62) | 89 | (66) | 70 | (49) | |
| Perceived emotional distress baseline | SRQ ≤ 6 | 41 | (44) | 70 | (52) | 110 | (78) |
| SRQ ≥ 7 | 53 | (56) | 65 | (48) | 31 | (22)† | |
| Perceived emotional distress follow-up | SRQ ≤ 6 | 47 | (50) | 97 | (72) | 118 | (84) |
| SRQ ≥ 7 | 47 | (50) | 38 | (28)† | 23 | (16)† | |
| Partner control baseline | None | 17 | (18) | 58 | (43) | 89 | (63) |
| 1-7 activities | 77 | (82) | 77 | (57)† | 52 | (37)† | |
| Partner control Follow-up | None | 20 | (21) | 90 | (67) | 109 | (77) |
| 1-7 activities | 74 | (79) | 45 | (33)† | 32 | (23)† | |
| S. resources baseline | High | 44 | (47) | 88 | (65) | 102 | (72) |
| Low | 50 | (53) | 47 | (35)† | 39 | (28)† | |
| S. resources Follow-up | High | 33 | (35) | 70 | (52) | 76 | (54) |
| Low | 61 | (65) | 65 | (48)† | 65 | (46)† | |
| Combined partner control | High-increased | 74 | (79) | 45 | (33) | 32 | (23) |
| No control-decreased | 20 | (21) | 90 | (67)† | 109 | (77)† | |
| Combined social resources | Low-decreased | 61 | (65) | 65 | (48) | 65 | (46) |
| High-increased | 33 | (35) | 70 | (52)† | 76 | (54)† | |
*Women who experienced abused only at follow-up (28) not included, † p < 0.05
Women's attitudes toward gender roles between time points and by IPV patterns at Follow-up, n = 398.
| If husband mistreats wife, other people outside family should intervene. | 55 | 67 | 12 | (5;19) | 70 | (60-80) | 70 | (62-78) | 64 | (55-72) |
| A man has good reasons to hit his wife if: | ||||||||||
| 1. Doesn't do house chores | 6 | 2 | -4 | (-6;-1) | 2 | (0-7) | 3 | (1-7) | 1 | (0-4) |
| 2. Disobeys husband | 7 | 3 | -4 | (-6;-1) | 4 | (1-1) | 4 | (1-8) | 1 | (0-4) |
| 3. Doesn't want to have sex | 2 | 1 | -1 | (-2;0) | 1 | (0-6) | --- | --- | ||
| 4. Asks him about another woman | 3 | 1 | -2 | (-3;0) | 2 | (0-7) | --- | --- | ||
| 5. Suspects she is unfaithful | 8 | 1 | -7 | (-10;-4) | 3 | (1-9) | 1 | (0-4) | --- | |
| 6. Discovers she is unfaithful | 13 | 1 | -12 | (-15;-8) | 2 | (0-7) | --- | --- | ||
*McNemar Test
Abuse ending, crude and adjusted OR by selected baseline and follow-up determinants, n = 229.
| Age at follow-up (years) | 18-23 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 24-27 | 1.06 | (0.5-2.1) | 0.9 | (0.4-1.9) | |
| 28-31 | 1.4 | (0.7-3) | 1.6 | (0.7-4) | |
| 32-50 | 1.8 | (0.8-4) | 2.1 | (0.8-5.4) | |
| Residency | Urban | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Rural | 1.9 | (1.1-3.3) | 1.8 | (0.9-3.4) | |
| Marital status follow- up | Same partner | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| New partner/alone | 2.3 | (1.1-4.7) | 1.9 | (0.8-4.5) | |
| Combined Partner control baseline and follow-up | High-increased | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| Low-decreased | 7.4 | (4-13.6) | 6.7 | (3.5-13) | |
| Combined Social Resources baseline and follow-up | Low-decreased | 1.0 | 1.0 | ||
| High-increased | 2.0 | (1.1-3.4) | 2.0 | (1.1-3.7) | |