| Literature DB >> 32082415 |
Maureen Murphy1, Mary Ellsberg1, Manuel Contreras-Urbina1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite high rates of violence against women and girls (VAWG) in conflict and humanitarian contexts, many survivors do not tell anyone about their experience or seek help from support r services (e.g. health, legal, psychosocial support, police).Entities:
Keywords: Conflict-affected settings; Help seeking behaviours; Intimate partner violence; Non-partner sexual violence; Violence against women and girls
Year: 2020 PMID: 32082415 PMCID: PMC7017609 DOI: 10.1186/s13031-020-0257-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Confl Health ISSN: 1752-1505 Impact factor: 2.723
Socio-demographics of women and girls who experienced NPSV or IPV and disclosed the experience or sought help
| Overall Sample ( | NPSV disclosure and help seeking ( | IPV disclosure and help seeking ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Told Someone | Sought Help | Told Someone | Sought Help | ||
| Total | 54% (50–58) | 27% (23–30) | 56% (53–59) | 36% (33–38) | |
| Location | |||||
| Juba | 24% | 49% (42–57)*** | 11% (7–17)*** | 49% (43–55)*** | 15% (11–20)*** |
| Rumbek | 39% | 64% (58–69)*** | 31% (26–37)*** | 70% (66–74)*** | 52% (48–57)*** |
| Juba PoCs | 37% | 48% (43–54)*** | 30%(25–35)*** | 42% (37–47)*** | 29% (25–34)*** |
| Age | |||||
| 15–19 | 17% | 48% (41–55) | 22% (17–29) | 42% (34–51)*** | 26% (19–35)** |
| 20–29 | 46% | 53% (48–58) | 25% (21–30) | 53% (49–57)*** | 33% (30–37)** |
| 30–39 | 22% | 58% (50–65) | 27% (30–35) | 61% (55–67)*** | 37% (32–43)** |
| 40–64 | 14% | 64% (54–74) | 38% (28–49) | 64% (57–71)*** | 46% (39–53)** |
| Education | |||||
| No education | 44% | 55% (49–60) | 31% (26–36)* | 63% (59–67)*** | 46% (42–50)*** |
| Primary education | 28% | 53% (47–59) | 23% (18–29)* | 48% (43–54)*** | 27% (22–32)*** |
| Secondary or higher | 28% | 54% (48–61) | 23% (18–29)* | 50% (45–56)*** | 26% (21–31)*** |
| Occupation | |||||
| Not Working | 64% | 52% (47–56) | 27% (23–31)* | 57% (54–61)** | 36% (33–39) |
| Student | 14% | 54% (46–63) | 18% (13–26)* | 41% (32–50)** | 26% (19–35) |
| Working | 23% | 62% (54–69) | 32% (25–40)* | 58% (52–63)** | 38% (33–44) |
| Primary Source of Income | |||||
| No Income/ Humanitarian Aid | 28% | 46% (40–52)** | 30% (25–36) | 48% (42–53)** | 34% (29–39)*** |
| Money from own work | 20% | 63% (54–70)** | 24% (18–32) | 65% (59–70)** | 50% (43–56)*** |
| Support from husband | 31% | 54% (47–61)** | 27% (21–33) | 58% (53–62)** | 30% (26–35)*** |
| Other Support | 21% | 58% (51–65)** | 23% (17–29) | 53% (46–60)** | 31% (25–38)*** |
| Main Source of Cooking Fuel | |||||
| Wood/Gras/Other | 41% | 51% (46–57) | 24% (19–29) | 62% (57–66)*** | 45% (40–49)*** |
| Charcoal | 59% | 56% (51–60) | 28% (24–32) | 51% (47–55)*** | 29% (26–32)*** |
| House | |||||
| Hut [Tukul] | 38% | 57% (51–63)* | 22% (18–27) | 62% (58–66)*** | 42% (37–46)** |
| House/apartment | 16% | 61% (52–70)* | 27% (19–36) | 59% (52–66)*** | 30% (24–37)** |
| Temporary or communal shelter | 45% | 50% (45–55)* | 29% (25–34) | 48% (44–53)*** | 32% (28–36)** |
| Marital Status- Ever married | 81% | 55% (51–59) | 29%* (25–32) | 58% (44–61)*** | 38% (35–41)*** |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Conflict Exposure
| Told Someone | Sought Help | |
|---|---|---|
| Non-Partner Sexual Violence ( | ||
| Incident of SV occurred during a conflict event (conflict-related SV) | 60% (55–64)*** | 36% (32–40)*** |
| Intimate Partner Violence ( | ||
| Was exposed to conflict event (armed attack, abduction, injury) | 60% (57–64) *** | 40% (37–44)*** |
Note: *** p < 0.001
Multivariate analysis for disclosure and help seeking for NPSV survivors
| Model 1: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with disclosure of NPSV | Model 2: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with help seeking after NPSV | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR (95% CI) | aOR (95%CI) | Crude OR (95% CI) | aOR (95%CI) | |
| Conflict-related Violence | ||||
| Had a direct conflict experience | 1.7** (1.1–2.6) | 2.2** (1.3–3.7) | 3.7*** (2.2–6.2) | 3.1*** (1.7–5.9) |
| Violence Disclosure Factors | ||||
| Type of Violence | ||||
| Other form of SV | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Raped | 1.1 (.7–1.5) | 1.1 (.8–1.5) | 1.1 (.7–1.6) | 0.9 (.6–1.4) |
| Perpetrator of Violence | ||||
| Other person | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Armed Actor/Police | 1.6 (1.0–2.6) | 1.9* (1.1–3.1) | 1.9* (1.1–3.2) | 1.4 (.8–2.5) |
| Agreed that a woman is to blame if she is raped | .7 (.5–1.1) | 0.6* (.4–.9) | 1.4 (.9–2.3) | 1.1 (.7–1.9) |
| Socio-demographics | ||||
| Location | ||||
| Juba | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Rumbek | 1.8* (1.1–3.2) | 1.6 (.8–3.0) | 3.6** (1.7–7.9) | 2.7* (1.1–6.8) |
| Juba PoCs | 1.0 (.6–1.6) | 0.7 (.3–1.6) | 3.3** (1.5–7.7) | 2.1 (.7–6.9) |
| Age | ||||
| 15–19 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 20–29 | 1.2 (.8–1.8) | 1.4 (.9–2.1) | 1.2 (.7–1.9) | 1.1 (.6–2.0) |
| 30–39 | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) | 1.7*(1.1–2.8) | 1.3 (.7–2.3) | 1.0 (.5–2.2) |
| 40–64 | 2.0* (1.1–3.4) | 2.1** (1.2–3.8) | 2.1* (1.2–.3.9) | 2.0 (1.0–4.0) |
| Income | ||||
| No income/humanitarian aid | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Own work | 1.9* (1.1–3.4) | 1.6 (.8–3.2) | .8 (.4–.1.5) | 0.7 (.3–1.5) |
| Husband | 1.4 (.8–2.3) | 1.3 (.7–2.3) | .9 (.5–1.6) | 1.1 (.6–2.2) |
| Other | 1.6 (1.0–2.6) | 1.8* (1.0–3.2) | .7 (.4–1.2) | 1.1 (.6–2.0) |
| Employment Status | ||||
| Not working | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Student | 1.1 (.7–1.8) | 1.2 (.7–2.2) | .6 (.3–1.1) | .6 (.3–1.1) |
| Working | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) | 1.1 (.7–1.9) | 1.3 (.8–2.1) | 1.9* (1.1–3.2) |
| Fuel Source | ||||
| Leaves/grass/wood | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Charcoal | 1.2 (.8–1.8) | 1.6 (1.0–2.5) | 1.2 (.8–2.0) | 2.0* (1.1–3.6) |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; The final adjusted models were also controlled for the following socio-demographics which were not statistically significant in the final model: education, housing type and marital status. Standard errors were clustered at the boma/block level for all multivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with disclosure of IPV
| Model 1: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with disclosure of IPV | Model 2: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with help seeking after IPV | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR (95% CI) | AOR (95%CI) | Crude OR (95% CI) | AOR (95%CI) | |
| Conflict-related Violence | ||||
| Had a direct conflict experience | 1.8***(1.3–2.4) | 1.7 ** (1.2–2.5) | 2.0*** (1.3–3.0) | 1.4 (.9–2.2) |
| Violence Disclosure Factors | ||||
| Type of Violence | ||||
| Sexual violence only | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Physical violence only | 2.4***(1.6–3.7) | 1.5 (.9–2.5) | 2.1* (1.1–3.9) | 1.0 (.6–1.9) |
| Physical and sexual violence | 4.9***(3.2–7.3) | 2.2*** (1.4–3.5) | 3.9*** (2.3–6.5) | 1.7* (1.0–2.8) |
| Have experienced controlling behaviours | 1.7* (1.1–2.4) | 1.6* (1.1–2.4) | 2.2*** (1.4–3.5) | 2.2** (1.4–3.6) |
| Injured due to IPV | 4.3*** (3.3–5.7) | 2.7***(2.0–3.8) | 4.6*** (3.2–6.6) | 3.5***(2.4–5.2) |
| Effect on well-being due to IPV | ||||
| No effect | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| A little effect | 3.1***(2.1–4.5) | 1.7** (1.1–2.5) | 2.5*** (1.5–4.1) | 1.3 (.8–2.1) |
| A large effect | 5.2*** (3.4–7.9) | 2.0** (1.2–3.3) | 3.3*** (1.9–5.9) | 1.2 (.7–2.1) |
| Fear of Husband/Partner | ||||
| Never afraid | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Afraid sometimes | 2.5***(1.8–3.5) | 1.5* (1.0–2.1) | 1.3 (.9–2.0) | .6* (.4–1.0) |
| Afraid most of the time | 4.2*** (2.7–6.7) | 1.7 (1.0–2.8) | 2.0* (1.2–3.4) | .7 (.4–1.2) |
| Agreed that violence from husband against wife was justified in at least 1 occasion | 1.1* (1.0–1.3) | 1.0 (.9–1.2) | 1.3*** (1.2–1.5) | 1.1 (1.0–1.3) |
| Marital Characteristics | ||||
| Bride price paid upon marriage | 1.6** (1.2–2.2) | 1.1 (.7–1.6) | 2.4*** (1.6–3.5) | 1.3 (.8–2.1) |
| Marriage was forced | 1.9***(1.4–2.7) | 1.3 (.9–2.0) | 2.2*** (1.5–3.1) | 1.5* (1.0–2.3) |
| Socio-demographics | ||||
| Location | ||||
| Juba | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Rumbek | 2.5***(1.6–3.8) | 1.3 (.8–2.2) | 6.2*** (3.7–10.3) | 3.2*** (1.8–5.8) |
| Juba PoCs | .8 (.5–1.1) | .3*** (.1–.5) | 2.3** (1.4–3.9) | .9 (.4–1.8) |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001; The final adjusted models were also controlled for the following socio-demographics which were not statistically significant in the final model: age, source of income, employment status, education, fuel source, housing type and marital status. Standard errors were clustered at the boma/block level for all multivariate analysis
Multivariate analysis of factors associated with formal versus informal/community-based services, among women who accessed any service
| Model 1: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with formal services for IPV ( | Model 2: Multivariate analysis of factors associated with formal services for NPSV ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crude OR (95% CI) | AOR (95%CI) | Crude OR (95% CI) | AOR (95%CI) | |
| Conflict-related Violence | ||||
| Had a direct conflict experience | .6 (.3–1.3) | .6 (.3–1.3) | 2.7* (1.0–6.9) | 3.7* (1.0–13.3) |
| Violence Disclosure Factors | ||||
| Type of Violence | ||||
| (IPV) Sexual violence only/(NPSV) Other form of SV | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| (IPV) Physical violence only/(NPSV) Raped | 2.7(.9–7.5) | 3.6 * (1.2–10.6) | 1.2 (.5–2.6) | 1.3 (.6–3.3) |
| (IPV) Physical and sexual violence | 2.4 (.9–6.8) | 3.0* (1.0–8.5) | – | – |
| Have experienced controlling behaviours | .4* (.2–.9) | .3* (.1–.9) | – | – |
| Marital Characteristics | ||||
| Marriage was forced | .8 (.4–1.4) | .5* (.3–1.0) | – | – |
| Socio-demographics | ||||
| Income | ||||
| No income/humanitarian aid | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Own work | 1.0 (.5–2.0) | 1.1 (.5–2.4) | .3 (.1–1.0) | .4 (.1–2.4) |
| Husband | 1.8 (.9–3.5) | 3.2** (1.5–7.0) | .5 (.2–1.5) | 1.0 (.2–5.9) |
| Other | 1.4 (.7–2.7) | 2.4* (1.1–5.1) | .4 (.1–1.0) | 1.7 (.4–6.9) |
| Employment Status | ||||
| Not working | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Student | .4*(.2–1.0) | .4 (.1–1.3) | .2** (.1–.6) | .2** (0–.6) |
| Working | 2.2* (1.3–3.9) | 2.4* (1.2–5.1) | 1.6 (.7–3.6) | 3.6* (1–13.1) |
| Fuel Source | ||||
| Leaves/grass/wood | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Charcoal | .8 (.4–1.4) | .8 (.4–1.4) | 2.1 (1.0–4.8) | 3.3* (1.2–9.4) |
| Ever Married | 3.1 (.6–15.1) | 3.2 (.8–12.7) | 2.3* (1.2–4.6) | 3.4* (1.3–8.9) |
Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01; The final adjusted models were also controlled for the following socio-demographics in the final model: location, age, education, and housing type. The IPV model also included variables to account for fear of husband/partner, effect of IPV on wellbeing, injury, payment of brideprice and justification of violence which were not statistically significant. The NPSV model also included variables about the perpetrator of violence and attitudes towards rape which were not statistically significant. Standard errors were clustered at the boma/block level for all multivariate analysis