| Literature DB >> 31900234 |
Liping Peng1, Rui She2, Jing Gu1,3, Chun Hao1,3, Fengsu Hou4, Dannuo Wei1, Jinghua Li5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that intimate partner violence (IPV) is prevalent in men who have sex with men (MSM). Mental health problems among MSM with IPV victimization have become a growing concern. The present study examined homosexual self-stigma and self-efficacy as potential mediators of the association between IPV victimization and depression.Entities:
Keywords: Depression; Intimate partner violence; Men who have sex with men; Self-efficacy; Self-stigma
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 31900234 PMCID: PMC6942407 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-019-8125-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Demographic information of participants
| Demographic characteristic | IPV Victimization | Depression | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Physical | Sexual | Monitoring | Controlling | Emotional | Any | Prevalence (row%) | Yes | Prevalence (row%) | ||||
| Age (years old) | ||||||||||||
| 18–25 | 234 | 18 | 24 | 28 | 23 | 44 | 84 | 35.9 | 0.140 | 106 | 45.3 | <0.001 |
| 26–45 | 329 | 36 | 43 | 57 | 29 | 54 | 103 | 31.3 | 99 | 30.1 | ||
| >45 | 15 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 13.3 | 3 | 20.0 | ||
| Ethnicity | ||||||||||||
| Han | 528 | 50 | 59 | 80 | 51 | 86 | 169 | 32.0 | 0.250 | 184 | 34.8 | 0.064 |
| Others | 50 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 2 | 13 | 20 | 40.0 | 24 | 48.0 | ||
| Education level | ||||||||||||
| Below university | 264 | 26 | 28 | 43 | 26 | 45 | 87 | 33.0 | 0.904 | 97 | 36.7 | 0.728 |
| University or above | 314 | 29 | 39 | 44 | 27 | 54 | 102 | 32.5 | 111 | 35.4 | ||
| Marital status | ||||||||||||
| Married | 47 | 8 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 12 | 14 | 29.8 | 0.657 | 19 | 40.4 | 0.508 |
| Unmarried | 531 | 47 | 59 | 77 | 49 | 87 | 175 | 33.0 | 189 | 35.6 | ||
| Personal monthly income (CNY) | ||||||||||||
| ≤1000 | 91 | 8 | 14 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 24 | 26.4 | 0.233 | 37 | 40.7 | 0.008 |
| 1001–3000 | 148 | 10 | 14 | 18 | 17 | 25 | 51 | 34.5 | 66 | 44.6 | ||
| 3001–6000 | 238 | 29 | 31 | 48 | 22 | 54 | 86 | 36.1 | 80 | 33.6 | ||
| >6000 | 101 | 8 | 8 | 14 | 9 | 11 | 28 | 27.7 | 25 | 24.8 | ||
| Employment | ||||||||||||
| Full-time | 382 | 36 | 41 | 62 | 39 | 65 | 122 | 31.9 | 0.802 | 129 | 33.8 | 0.199 |
| Part-time | 45 | 4 | 6 | 10 | 4 | 11 | 17 | 37.8 | 14 | 31.1 | ||
| Student | 119 | 11 | 16 | 11 | 4 | 18 | 38 | 31.9 | 52 | 43.7 | ||
| Unemployed/ Retired | 32 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 12 | 37.5 | 13 | 40.6 | ||
| Sexual orientation | ||||||||||||
| Homosexual | 470 | 40 | 54 | 73 | 44 | 75 | 154 | 32.8 | 0.508 | 172 | 36.6 | 0.812 |
| Heterosexual | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.0 | 1 | 50.0 | ||
| Bisexual | 91 | 13 | 12 | 14 | 9 | 22 | 32 | 35.2 | 31 | 34.1 | ||
| Not sure | 15 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 20.0 | 4 | 26.7 | ||
| History of STDs | ||||||||||||
| No | 448 | 40 | 50 | 69 | 43 | 74 | 149 | 33.3 | 0.594 | 152 | 33.9 | 0.056 |
| Yes | 130 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 10 | 25 | 40 | 30.8 | 56 | 43.1 | ||
aChi-square tests
Mean, standard deviation of the variable and correlation between variables in the study
| Variables | IPV Victimization | Self-efficacy | Depression | Self-stigma | Mean | SD | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPV Victimization | – | 0.62 | 1.11 | 0–5 | |||
| Self-efficacy | −.217** | – | 27.45 | 6.00 | 10–40 | ||
| Depression | .206** | −.536** | – | 7.55 | 5.75 | 0–30 | |
| Self-stigma | .118** | −.363** | .317** | – | 1.94 | 0.59 | 1–4 |
** p < 0.01
Unstandardized and standardized loading for measurement model
| Parameter estimate | Unstandardized Estimate | Standardized Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| stigma → Affective | 1 | 0.902 |
| stigma → Cognitive | 0.975*** | 0.948 |
| stigma → Behavioral | 0.698*** | 0.767 |
| efficacy → Parcel 1ea | 1 | 0.866 |
| efficacy → Parcel 2e | 1.103*** | 0.905 |
| efficacy → Parcel 3e | 1.487*** | 0.859 |
| depression → Parcel 1d | 1 | 0.796 |
| depression → Parcel 2d | 1.254*** | 0.820 |
| depression → Parcel 3d | 1.008*** | 0.743 |
a Items of General Self-Efficacy scale and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression 10 were randomly divided into three parcels
*** p < 0.001
Fig. 1Hypothesized structural models (Model 1, 2 and 3). Note: All path coefficients shown were standardized. *** p < 0.001. Age and income have been controlled for in all SEM analyses and were not drawn in the figure
Goodness-of-fit of hypothesized structural model
| Models | CFI | IFI | RMSEA | χ2/df | χ2 | df |
| Model 1 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.076 | 4.31 | 198.43 | 46 |
| Model 2 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.075 | 4.23 | 198.83 | 47 |
| Model 3 | 0.98 | 0.98 | 0.055 | 2.75 | 123.80 | 45 |
| Changes in χ2 | Changes in df | |||||
| Comparisons | ||||||
| Model 2 versus model 1 | 0.40 | 1 | 0.527 | |||
| Model 3 versus model 1 | 74.63 | 1 | < 0.001 | |||
Summary of total, direct, and indirect effects of the mediation model
| Mediation model | Effect (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Direct effect | ||
| IPV → depression | 0.024 (−0.049,0.103) | 0.512 |
| Indirect effect | 0.148 (0.096, 0.199) | < 0.001 |
| IPV victimization → self-stigma → depression | 0.031 (0.008, 0.069) | < 0.001 |
| IPV victimization → self-efficacy → depression | 0.084 (0.032, 0.145) | < 0.001 |
| IPV victimization → self-stigma → self-efficacy → depression | 0.033 (0.020, 0.034) | < 0.001 |
| Total effect | 0.172 (0.081, 0.266) | < 0.001 |