Marlene C Lira1, Ziming Xuan2, Sharon M Coleman3, Monica H Swahn4, Timothy C Heeren2, Timothy S Naimi5. 1. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Biostatistics and Epidemiology Data Analytics Center, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Georgia State University School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia. 5. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: tim.naimi@bmc.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intimate partner violence (IPV) results in deaths of both primary and corollary (i.e., nonintimate partner) victims. Alcohol use is a known risk factor for IPV, yet the relationship between alcohol policies and IPV homicides is unclear. This repeated cross-sectional study characterizes alcohol involvement, and the relationship between alcohol policies and alcohol involvement, among victims of IPV homicides in the U.S. METHODS: Homicide victim data from 17 states in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003 to 2012 were analyzed in 2017-2018. Alcohol Policy Scale scores characterized alcohol policies by state year and were used in generalized estimating equation logistic regression models to predict the odds of alcohol involvement among victims of IPV homicide. RESULTS: Among victims of IPV homicide, 36.5% of primary and 41.1% of corollary victims had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) >0.00%. Of the victims with a positive BAC, 67.6% had a BAC ≥0.08%. In adjusted models, a 10-percentage point increase in Alcohol Policy Scale score was associated with reduced odds of having a positive BAC (AOR=0.77, 95% CI=0.64, 0.93) and having a BAC ≥0.08% (AOR=0.82, 95% CI=0.68, 0.99) among all victims, primary victims (AOR=0.78, 95% CI=0.63, 0.98; AOR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65, 1.04), and corollary victims (AOR=0.61, 95% CI=0.42, 0.89; AOR=0.68, 95% CI=0.48, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol use was prevalent among victims of IPV homicide, and more-restrictive alcohol policies were associated with reduced odds of alcohol involvement. Strengthening alcohol policies is a promising strategy to reduce alcohol-involved IPV homicide victimization.
INTRODUCTION: Intimate partner violence (IPV) results in deaths of both primary and corollary (i.e., nonintimate partner) victims. Alcohol use is a known risk factor for IPV, yet the relationship between alcohol policies and IPV homicides is unclear. This repeated cross-sectional study characterizes alcohol involvement, and the relationship between alcohol policies and alcohol involvement, among victims of IPV homicides in the U.S. METHODS: Homicide victim data from 17 states in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003 to 2012 were analyzed in 2017-2018. Alcohol Policy Scale scores characterized alcohol policies by state year and were used in generalized estimating equation logistic regression models to predict the odds of alcohol involvement among victims of IPV homicide. RESULTS: Among victims of IPV homicide, 36.5% of primary and 41.1% of corollary victims had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) >0.00%. Of the victims with a positive BAC, 67.6% had a BAC ≥0.08%. In adjusted models, a 10-percentage point increase in Alcohol Policy Scale score was associated with reduced odds of having a positive BAC (AOR=0.77, 95% CI=0.64, 0.93) and having a BAC ≥0.08% (AOR=0.82, 95% CI=0.68, 0.99) among all victims, primary victims (AOR=0.78, 95% CI=0.63, 0.98; AOR=0.82, 95% CI=0.65, 1.04), and corollary victims (AOR=0.61, 95% CI=0.42, 0.89; AOR=0.68, 95% CI=0.48, 0.97). CONCLUSIONS:Alcohol use was prevalent among victims of IPV homicide, and more-restrictive alcohol policies were associated with reduced odds of alcohol involvement. Strengthening alcohol policies is a promising strategy to reduce alcohol-involved IPV homicide victimization.
Authors: Sergio Duailibi; William Ponicki; Joel Grube; Ilana Pinsky; Ronaldo Laranjeira; Martin Raw Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2007-10-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Joseph B Kuhns; David B Wilson; Tammatha A Clodfelter; Edward R Maguire; Stephanie A Ainsworth Journal: Addiction Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: T Vos; J Astbury; L S Piers; A Magnus; M Heenan; L Stanley; L Walker; K Webster Journal: Bull World Health Organ Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 9.408
Authors: Andrew G Bowen; Robert A Tessler; Deirdre Bowen; Miriam J Haviland; Ali Rowhani-Rahbar; Frederick P Rivara Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Marlene C Lira; Vishnudas Sarda; Timothy C Heeren; Matthew Miller; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Sharon M Coleman; Marlene C Lira; Jason Blanchette; Timothy C Heeren; Timothy S Naimi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Kajol V Sontate; Mohammad Rahim Kamaluddin; Isa Naina Mohamed; Rashidi Mohamed Pakri Mohamed; Mohd Farooq Shaikh; Haziq Kamal; Jaya Kumar Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2021-12-20
Authors: Pamela J Trangenstein; Snigdha R Peddireddy; Won K Cook; Matthew E Rossheim; Maristela G Monteiro; David H Jernigan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-07-04 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Ellicott C Matthay; Laura M Gottlieb; David Rehkopf; May Lynn Tan; David Vlahov; M Maria Glymour Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 6.222