Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation International Centre for Reproductive Health, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

ORCID logo

Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Georgia State University Alumna, Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America

Roles Validation, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Médecins Sans Frontières-Operational Centre Brussels, Brussels, Belgium

Roles Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

  • Emilomo Ogbe, 
  • Stacy Harmon, 
  • Rafael Van den Bergh, 
  • Olivier Degomme

PLOS

  • Published: June 25, 2020
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177
  • Reader Comments

Table 1

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a key public health issue, with a myriad of physical, sexual and emotional consequences for the survivors of violence. Social support has been found to be an important factor in mitigating and moderating the consequences of IPV and improving health outcomes. This study’s objective was to identify and assess network oriented and support mediated IPV interventions, focused on improving mental health outcomes among IPV survivors.

A systematic scoping review of the literature was done adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The search covered a period of 1980 to 2017 with no language restrictions across the following databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PROQUEST, and Cochrane. Studies were included if they were primary studies of IPV interventions targeted at survivors focused on improving access to social support, mental health outcomes and access to resources for survivors.

337 articles were subjected to full text screening, of which 27 articles met screening criteria. The review included both quantitative and qualitative articles. As the focus of the review was on social support, we identified interventions that were i) focused on individual IPV survivors and improving their access to resources and coping strategies, and ii) interventions focused on both individual IPV survivors as well as their communities and networks. We categorized social support interventions identified by the review as Survivor focused , advocate/case management interventions (15 studies) , survivor focused, advocate/case management interventions with a psychotherapy component (3 studies), community-focused , social support interventions (6 studies) , community-focused , social support interventions with a psychotherapy component (3 studies) . Most of the studies, resulted in improvements in social support and/or mental health outcomes of survivors, with little evidence of their effect on IPV reduction or increase in healthcare utilization.

There is good evidence of the effect of IPV interventions focused on improving access to social support through the use of advocates with strong linkages with community based structures and networks, on better mental health outcomes of survivors, there is a need for more robust/ high quality research to assess in what contexts and for whom, these interventions work better compared to other forms of IPV interventions.

Citation: Ogbe E, Harmon S, Van den Bergh R, Degomme O (2020) A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors. PLoS ONE 15(6): e0235177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

Editor: Nihaya Daoud, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Faculty of Health Sciences, ISRAEL

Received: March 7, 2019; Accepted: June 9, 2020; Published: June 25, 2020

Copyright: © 2020 Ogbe et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: E.O- University of Gent BOF startkrediet (BOF.STA.2016.0031.01) The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The global prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) has been estimated at about 30% for women aged 15 and over [ 1 ]. We define IPV within this paper as ‘any acts of physical violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or former intimate partner’ [ 2 ]. IPV affects men and women, and men or women can be perpetrators or survivors of violence. However, women are the most affected by IPV, and men tend to perpetrate violence more than women [ 3 ]. Survivors of violence are likely to first disclose experiences of intimate partner violence and expect informal support from a friend, family member, neighbour or other members of their social network, prior to seeking support from formal sources like health institutions and legal officers, however, the extent of disclosure differed with age, nature, ethnicity and gender [ 4 ].

IPV has been found to be associated with an increased risk of poor health, depressive symptoms, substance use, chronic disease, chronic mental illness and injury for both men and women [ 5 ]. Social support has been found to be an important factor for mediating, buffering and improving the outcomes of survivors of violence and improving mental health outcomes[ 6 ]. Conversely, social isolation and lack of social support have been found to be linked with poor health outcomes for survivors of violence. Liang et al [ 6 ] discussed the importance, perception of the abuse by the IPV survivor plays on their decision to ask for help and support. They mentioned how cultural factors including stigma and shame around disclosing IPV, perception of the incident as a personal problem and awareness of resources available, play a determining factor on types of resources accessed, especially for IPV survivors with a migrant background or of a low socioeconomic status. IPV survivors who perceive the abuse to be a personal problem were more likely to use placating and avoidant strategies before seeking external support [ 6 ].

In this study, we make use of Shumaker and Brownell’s definition of social support, and define it as any provision of assistance, which may be financial or emotional, that is recognized by both the beneficiary and provider as advantageous to the beneficiary’s welfare. ‘[ 7 ]. IPV interventions that involve the use of social support, have the potential to improve the health seeking behaviour, access to resources and mental health outcomes of IPV survivors. Commonly cited types of social support interventions include but are not limited to the use of peer support, family support and the use of ‘remote interventions like the use of internet or telephones as sources of social support from trained counsellors, as well as information about resources’ [ 8 ]. Goodman and Smyth [ 9 ] discussed the importance of using a ‘network oriented’ approach to provision of domestic violence services that takes into account the value of informal support, from social network members of IPV survivors, as this would promote the well-being of the survivor and sustain some of the benefits of the intervention over time. Given the existing gap in evidence on the effect of different IPV interventions on social support and/ mental health outcomes of IPV survivors, this study aimed to address the evidence gap, by assessing the effects of these different IPV interventions, and network oriented approaches on improving access to social support and improved mental health outcomes for IPV survivors. This is of added benefit, as access to social support improves the mental health outcome of survivors of violence. More evidence of different types of social support interventions targeted at different groups of people, that are effective in addressing mental health outcomes of survivors, are needed.

The systematic review was developed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The methods used to screen the studies and define eligibility are described below:

Eligibility criteria

Studies meeting the following criteria were included: Primary research (original articles excluding systematic reviews), targeted at IPV survivors, describing interventions focused on improving access to resources and mental health outcomes for IPV survivors. The interventions had to use a social support or network-oriented approach. There were no restrictions on gender, but most of the studies identified focused on female survivors of violence (See Table 1 ). We defined ‘IPV as physical, sexual and psychological abuse directed against a person, by a current or ex-partner’ [ 10 ].

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.t001

Studies had to address the following outcomes: intimate partner violence, social support, mental health outcomes and quality of life. Other outcomes that were also included were those associated with access to resources, utilisation of health services, and safety-promoting behaviours, if they were assessed in addition to the outcomes mentioned earlier. No restrictions were placed on study design or language, to allow for inclusion of all relevant studies.

Information sources

Between May and July 2017, we conducted a search across 5 databases: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane and PROQUEST, for studies published between 1980 and 2017. We decided to include studies from the 1980’s because some of the pioneering publications on the use of advocacy and social support, for example, Sullivan et al’s work were published in the late 80’s and early 1990’s and we wanted our review to include some of these publications. Even though the review eventually included only primary studies, we included studies from COCHRANE to allow us to identify additional articles. We did not conduct a separate search for grey literature, as the PROQUEST database also included scholarly journals, newspapers, reports, working papers, and datasets along with e-books. Retrieved references were imported to Endnote and Mendeley and were then transferred to a systematic review software called Co-evidence [ 11 ]. In January 2019, another search was done to update and ensure new articles or information could be included in the review. Table 1 provides an overview and summary of the studies selected, as well as the evidence ranking of the studies.

Search strategy

The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian, as well as a review of other existing systematic reviews on IPV or social support interventions. Search terms combined MeSH terms, and specific terms related to IPV and were adapted to each of the databases searched. This is presented in Table 2 .

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.t002

Study selection

Inclusion of retrieved studies and their eligibility were independently assessed by two reviewers, EO and SH, in a two-step process. First, the authors independently screened all study titles and abstracts using Co-evidence (the systematic review software), which notified each author of conflicts. When a conflict was identified, articles were again independently reviewed, and discordance was resolved through discussion, using the systematic review protocol as a guide. The same process was also used for the full text-screening phase of the study. While this process lengthened the screening process, it allowed for transparency and made it possible for both reviewers to continually reference the study protocol and ensure that the study objectives were adhered to, through the review process.

Data extraction

A standardized data collection form was developed by EO and SH, adapted from the Cochrane data collection grid. EO extracted all the data from the studies, SH and RB reviewed the data and it was agreed that OD would provide input if there was any disagreement about the data extracted.

Risk of bias

The quality and risk of bias in the studies were independently assessed by EO and SH, using the appropriate quality assessment tool. As the studies selected included quantitative and qualitative studies, there was an agreement to assess quantitative and qualitative studies separately. Quantitative studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project, see Table 3 for an overview of the components of this tool [ 12 ]. This tool had been used in another systematic review focused on interventions [ 13 ]. Qualitative studies were assessed, using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Qualitative Research Checklist [ 14 ], the main components focused on assessing the methodological limitations, coherence, adequacy of data and relevance of research. See Table 4 for an overview.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.t003

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.t004

Information about studies selected

The initial search across the different databases retrieved 3712 articles, of which 3364 articles were irrelevant based on the screening criteria. 337 articles were assessed at the full text screening stage, and 27 articles selected to be part of the systematic review, the overview is presented in Fig 1

thumbnail

From : Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). P referred R eporting I tems for S ystematic Reviews and M eta- A nalyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit www.prisma-statement.org .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.g001

Results/Key findings from the systematic review

The interventions were classified based on the methodology or type of social support provided to the survivors of violence. Most of the studies identified involved the use of an ‘advocate/ case manager’ or ‘interventionist’ (which referred to a nurse, psychologist or volunteer trained to administer the IPV intervention). The advocate was often responsible for offering the survivor information on resources and helping them identify safety strategies. The interventions usually consisted of weekly sessions or phone calls for a certain period of time. These interventions were mostly in the United States and from other countries like China, Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, Uganda and the United Kingdom. Other interventions involved the use of advocacy with an added psychotherapy component, and interventions that focused on community education, as well as empowerment of the IPV survivors. One of such community focused interventions used an empowerment model and encouraged survivors of violence to take photos of their safety strategies. These photos were used to educate the community about the consequences of intimate partner violence and advocate for community support to prevent intimate partner violence and encourage access to services. In our paper, the term ‘community focused’ included interventions targeted at the community which used participatory and non-participatory methods in the design and implementation of the programmes. The interventions identified in this systematic review had different target groups, pregnant women, survivors of violence resident in shelters, community members and IPV survivors, substance abusing women, and women with small children.

Types of social support interventions for intimate partner violence survivor

Survivor- focused social support interventions..

The interventions described below were all focused on providing social support and improving mental health outcomes for the survivors of violence, all of them involved the use of advocacy/case management approaches, through remote or ‘face to face’ methods. We also identified advocacy interventions with a strong therapeutic component, which we have discussed separately.

Advocacy/ Case management interventions

These interventions involved the use of community-based advocacy interventions focused on individuals that were survivors of violence, these interventions were focused on assisting the survivors identify and access resources, supportive relationships and cope with the effects of intimate partner violence. Fifteen of the studies reviewed (11 RCTs, 2 pre-post evaluation, 1 retrospective study, 1 quasi-experimental study with randomization) described experiences with social support interventions that provided some sort of advocacy service in combination with community support for survivors of violence, on an individual level [ 15 – 29 ].

Advocacy interventions may include ‘helping abused women to access services, guiding them through the process of safety planning, and improving abused women’s physical or psychological health’ [ 30 ]. For the review, interventions grouped under this category included mentor-mother interventions (these interventions involved the training of IPV survivors who were mothers as counsellors and mentors, for other IPV survivors), and use of home-based or in-clinic advocates. Most of the studies reported a decrease in depression, fear, post-traumatic stress disorder, and increased access to social support for the IPV survivors included in the study.

In Tiwari et al’s study, where an advocacy intervention was compared to the usual community services, the reduction in depression and other mental outcomes, was not significant but the reduction in ‘partner aggression’ and increase in access to social support in the intervention arm was significant [ 15 ]. Two of the studies, an in-clinic advocacy intervention by Coker et al [ 23 ] and a home-based advocate intervention by Sharps et al [ 20 ] resulted in a significant reduction in the experience of intimate partner violence by the survivors (decrease in experience of IPV in the intervention arm compared to the control group). The two mentor mothers’ studies included in this review, showed an increase in uptake of support services and mental health services. Prosman et al’s study [ 18 ] specifically showed evidence that the mentor mother intervention led to a decrease of in experience of IPV (decreased Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) mean score by 37.7 (SD 25.7) after 16 weeks), as well as in depression scores. This study had a component that focused on uptake of therapy, which may have influenced the outcomes. Four of these studies compared ‘face to face’ case management/ advocacy services to remote modes of care and assessed the impact on social support and IPV. Gilbert et al’s study [ 24 ] compared online and case manager implemented screening, assessment, and referral to treatment intervention for IPV survivors who were substance abusing, the intervention was guided by social cognitive theory, and focused on short screening, an intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) model. There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of impact of the interventions, the study found both groups has an increase in access to social support, IPV self-efficacy (ability to protect themselves from IPV) and abstinence from substance use, irrespective of the type of intervention they received. McFarlane et al [ 26 ] assessed the differences between nurse case management and a referral card on reduction of violence and use of community resources among IPV survivors, and found no differences in outcome between both groups, but found compared to baseline, participants who received either intervention (nurse case management or referral card) had a significant reduction in experiences of violence (threats of abuse, assaults, risks of homicide and work harassment) between baseline and 24 months post-intervention. There were no significant differences in outcome for participants who were in the referral card or case management intervention arm. Other outcomes like improved safety behaviors and a reduction in the utilization of community resources were also found across both groups. Stevens et al’s [ 27 ] study focused on using telephone based support/referral services for IPV survivors compared to enhanced usual care (, the intervention was based on a social support and empowerment model. The study found no significant difference in outcomes between the intervention arm (telephone-based arm) and the control arm (enhanced usual care- community services provided by the community center including health, social, educational, and recreational services). Research participants reported a decrease in experiences of IPV across both groups, associated with ‘higher levels of social support’ at baseline and at 3 months post-intervention. However, the reduced levels of violence did not influence the capacity to obtain or utilize community resources among the research participants. Constantino et al’s [ 29 ] study compared an advocacy based intervention across different methods (online and face to face) and found the intervention reduced depression, anxiety and increased personal and social support among the online group compared to the control group. The intervention included a module that addressed interpersonal relationships, thoughts and emotions as well as access to referral services like legal aid. Another study by Constantino [ 28 ] involved a nurse led intervention focused on providing information on resources and services for IPV survivors living in a domestic violence shelter. The intervention was compared to usual care in the shelter. The intervention group had reduced psychological distress, increased levels of social support and reduced reporting of health care issues. Most of the studies we found in this category showed moderate levels of quality of evidence.

Advocacy/Case management interventions with a psychotherapy component

3 of the studies (3 RCTs) [ 31 – 33 ] were focused on interventions that included specific types of psychotherapy, sometimes delivered remotely or through individual or group sessions. Zlotnick et al [ 31 ] described the use of interpersonal psychotherapy among pregnant women focused at improving social support among the survivors of violence during individual psychotherapy sessions. Though there was a moderate change in depression and PTSD scores (reduction) between the control and intervention groups at post-intake (5–6 weeks), this difference was not sustained at the post-partum period. Hansen et al [ 33 ] describes the use of psychotherapy using either the ‘Trauma Recovery Group’ (TRG) method developed by ‘a private Danish organization called ‘‘The Mothers’ Aid”‘ or regular trauma therapy for individual or groups of women who were survivors of IPV. The study reported significant changes in PTSD, depression and anxiety symptoms and increased levels of social support (high effect sizes); however, our assessment with the EPHPP grading revealed that the study design was weak. Miller et al’s [ 32 ] study shows the effect of a ‘mom empowerment programme’ focused on improving mental health outcomes and ability to access resources among IPV survivors participating in the programme, with resulting improvement in PTSD, depression and anxiety symptoms.

Community-focused/ network social support interventions

These group of studies, distinct from the ones described above focused on community education and change, so the focus of the studies was not just the individual survivor of violence, but the community as a whole. 9 (3 RCTs, 3 pre-post evaluations, 3 qualitative research) of the studies we reviewed consisted of interventions described as being community-based [ 34 – 42 ]. The definitions of community-focused interventions used for classifying the studies followed the typology by McLeroy et al [ 43 ], which refers to interventions where:

  • The setting of the intervention is the community
  • The target population of the intervention is the community
  • The intervention uses community members as a resource
  • The community serves as an agent for the intervention (i.e. interventions working with already existing structures within the community)

We have focused on interventions in this category where the focus of the intervention is the community. The interventions described include community participatory research, like those described by Ragavan et al’s systematic review on community participatory research on domestic violence [ 44 ], as well as interventions that are ‘community placed’, where the community is a target of the intervention, and might not have been involved in the design of the intervention, in a participatory way.

All the interventions were focused on IPV reduction and improving social support and mental health outcomes for survivors of violence. Interventions like SASA [ 34 , 39 ], used community members as a resource for the intervention. In the SASA intervention, community activists in the intervention sites were trained on GBV prevention, power inequalities and gender norms. After training, they carried out advocacy activities, engaging different stakeholders and members of their social networks to address harmful social norms around GBV. At the end of the intervention, there were reported lower rates of IPV among the intervention community. Other interventions like the ‘Framing Safety project’ [ 35 ], which focused on promoting agency and self-empowerment among survivors of violence, found that by providing means through which survivors of violence could tell their own stories and take ownership of this process, there was a resulting feeling of empowerment among the women. Other interventions used group therapy sessions that were community-based and culturally tailored to the specific target population. Wuest et al [ 41 ] described a collaborative partnership with different stakeholders (academic, NGOs and community members) to develop a comprehensive intervention to IPV, ‘Intervention for Health Enhancement After Leaving (iHEAL), a primary health care intervention for women recently separated from violent/abusive partners’. The post evaluation revealed significant reduction in depression and PTSD from baseline to 6 months post-intervention, these improvements in mental health outcomes, were present at 12 months post-intervention. Other outcomes, like social support, showed some initial improvement from baseline to 6 months post-intervention but these changes were not sustained till 12 months post-intervention.

Community focused/ network interventions with a psychotherapy component

Three of the nine studies (1 RCT and 2 pre-post study) by Kelly et al [ 36 ], McWhirter et al [ 37 ], and Nicolaidis et al [ 38 ] described group therapy interventions that were designed in collaboration with the target population in a participatory way. These studies reported significant reductions in severity of mental health conditions like depression and PTSD, as well as an increase in social support and self-efficacy for the women who were involved in the study.

The focus of this systematic review was to assess the existing evidence available on IPV interventions focused on improving social support and/or mental health outcomes. To ensure that we included all relevant studies, we included both quantitative and qualitative articles. 27 articles were included in the systematic review out of 337 full text articles assessed. The following interventions were identified via the review: Survivor focused interventions (18 studies: 15 of these studies were focused on advocacy/case management services; 3 of these on advocacy/case management services with a psychotherapy component), community-based social support interventions (9 studies:4 out of these were community coordinated interventions with a psychotherapy component). The heterogeneity of the studies made it difficult to conduct a meta-analysis because of the variability in outcome measures, study design and processes and duration of interventions implemented. Survivor focused advocacy/case management IPV interventions made up most of the interventions identified (18 out of 27). The studies showed good to moderate evidence of the positive impact of these interventions on mental health outcomes and also access to social support for the IPV survivors included in the study, and in a few studies, a reduction in partner aggression or experience of IPV (IPV scores) [ 15 – 23 ]. In one study, by De Prince et al [ 42 ], where a community-based advocacy intervention was compared to an advocacy intervention that was focused on referral, both groups showed improvement in mental health outcomes, but the community-based advocacy intervention group (outreach) had slightly better mental health outcomes. A specific approach of the intervention was that it was community-led/ coordinated, the community based organisation reached out directly to the survivors of violence based on information from the systems based advocate, hence removing the need for survivors to seek out services themselves based on the referrals received from the system based advocate. This study might have important lessons for future advocacy interventions, as just provision of referrals might not ensure uptake of services, and a community coordinated follow up of IPV survivors might be more effective in ensuring uptake. However, it must be noted that only few of the advocate-based studies and 1 of the community-focused interventions reported an impact on IPV, with good level of evidence [ 15 , 20 – 23 , 34 ], similar to what has been found in other reviews of advocate-based interventions on intimate partner violence [ 45 ]. Tiwari et al’s study, which focused on the use of an empowerment, social support and advocacy-focused telephone intervention, found improved mental health outcomes among the intervention group. In comparison, Cripe et al’s [ 46 ] study also compared the effect of an empowerment-based intervention in comparison to usual care among abused pregnant women and found higher scores of improved safety behaviours among the intervention group compared to the control group but ‘no statistically significant difference in health-related quality of life, adoption of safety behaviours, and use of community resources between women in the intervention and control groups’. These differences we attribute to the study design, context and characteristics of the study participant. Goodman et al has described the importance of integrating a ‘social network’ approach into IPV interventions, and linking interventions with social networks of IPV survivors to ensure sustained access to social support for the survivors [ 9 , 47 ]. Many of the advocacy/case management interventions described above have created these linkages by assisting IPV survivors identify sources of support within their existing networks and also engage in forming new social relationships [ 16 , 18 , 48 ]. However, more IPV interventions should integrate this approach in a coordinated systemic manner, as engaging with social network members of the IPV survivors ensures sustainability of the programme’s effects over time [ 9 ].

Several of the studies focused on psychotherapy interventions, which were individual, or group based. We classified these interventions separately as these interventions combined community-based advocacy with a therapeutic component, as opposed to advocacy/case management alone or community focused interventions. These interventions either used interpersonal therapy [ 31 ], traumatic treatment therapy [ 33 ], empowerment based group therapy [ 32 ], and a multicomponent intervention that combined therapeutic education sessions with information on resources and legal help remotely or ‘face to face’ [ 29 ]. All the interventions showed some impact on mental health outcomes and social support, with a weaker level of evidence of an impact on IPV. Although Zlotnick et al’s study[ 31 ] on a therapeutic intervention for pregnant IPV survivors, described an improvement of mental health outcomes (moderate effect on PTSD and depression), this finding was not sustained in the postpartum period, drawing attention to the need to assess the efficacy of interventions in this particular group, taking into account time dependent factors and participant attributes. A review done by Trabold et al [ 49 ], found that clinically focused interventions and group-based cognitive or cognitive behavioural interventions had a significant effect on depression and PTSD, as well as the uses of Interpersonal therapy (time dependent). However, as our review focused on therapies focused on improving social support and mental health outcomes, we included fewer studies. Although we found a similar trend as described by Trabold et al, among community-based interventions (including those that were psychotherapy focused), we could not assign the effect specifically to the type of psychotherapy method, but rather to the length, associated support services and context of the intervention. Sullivan et al [ 50 ] discussed the positive effect of trauma informed practice on mental health outcomes of IPV survivors in Shelters, showing evidence of the importance of IPV interventions to include a comprehensive ‘therapeutic or mental health component’. They also discussed the six components of what ‘trauma informed practice’ which includes: (a) reflecting and understanding of trauma and its many impacts on health and behaviour, (b) addressing both physical and psychological safety concerns, (c) using a culturally informed strengths-based approach, (d) helping to illuminate the nature and impact of trauma on survivors’ everyday experience, and (e) providing opportunities for clients to regain control over their lives’. These components were useful for advocacy/case management interventions for IPV survivors, to ensure a focus on improving mental health outcomes, intersectional collaboration between stakeholders, and that the intervention is survivor-centred and addresses cultural factors.

Interventions that compared remote and ‘face to face’ methods of support and advocacy mostly resulted in a reduction in IPV victimization and increased access to social support. In cases where different modes of intervention delivery were tested, for example a comparison between remotely delivered interventions (telephone or online) and ‘face to face’ interventions, no difference was noted between both modes of intervention. Krasnoff and Moscati’s study [ 51 ] discussed a multi-component referral, support and case management intervention that reported similar reduction in perceived IPV victimization as seen in studies included in our review. There were some differences in the telephone support interventions included, Stevens et al’s study [ 27 ] reported no difference in mental health outcomes compared to Tiwari et al’s study[ 15 ] which found an improvement in mental health outcomes among the intervention group. We postulate differences in outcome could be attributable to the fact that Tiwari’s intervention was more advocacy, empowerment and support focused than the intervention described in Stevens et al study, which was more information and referral focused.

Summary of key findings and recommendations

  • Most of the interventions that used advocacy with strong community linkages and a focus on community networks showed significant effects on mental health outcomes and access to social support, we assume a reason for this could be that because these interventions were rooted in the community, there were more sources of support that allowed the survivors of violence to develop better coping strategies, for example in the SASA study that included a strong community engagement component, community responses to cases of IPV were supportive of the survivor, and this had an effect on incidence of IPV. Future research and interventions on IPV should focus on ensuring stronger community linkages and outreach programmes to enhance the impact of the interventions on IPV survivors.
  • This review found that when remote modes of intervention delivery were compared to ‘in person’ delivery of an intervention, there were no significant differences in outcome. This finding is of specific importance to hard-to-reach and vulnerable populations whom might be unwilling to access care at hospitals and registered clinics. More research focused on the use of remote support interventions among vulnerable populations (specifically IPV survivors), should be encouraged.
  • There was a lot of heterogeneity in outcome measurements, especially measures of social support, drawing attention to the need for research and discussions around standardization and synthesis of evidence-based research on social support and IPV.
  • In some of the studies, the ‘dosage of the intervention’, as well as some participant characteristics like age or ethnicity are often cited as potential moderators of some of the outcomes, more research on IPV intervention should examine the time dependent nature of interventions and their effect on outcomes similar to what was done by Bybee et al[ 16 ].

Limitations

Although there were no language restrictions included in our search strategy, most of the studies retrieved and subsequently reviewed were in English, which could have influenced some of our conclusions.

Conclusions

This systematic review presented the findings from IPV interventions focused on social support and mental health outcomes for IPV survivors. Advocacy/case management interventions that had strong linkages with communities, and were community focused seemed to have significant effects on mental health outcomes and access to resources for IPV survivors. However, all IPV survivors are not the same, and culture, socioeconomic background and the perception of abuse by the IPV survivor, have a mediating effect on their decision to access social support and utilize referral services. ‘An intersectional trauma informed practice’[ 50 ] [ 52 ] that addresses psychological and physical effects of IPV, is culturally appropriate and is empowering for the survivor, in addition to a ‘social network oriented approach’ might provide a way to ensure that IPV interventions are responsive to the needs of the IPV survivor[ 47 ]. This will ensure the interventions are targeted at ensuring survivors are able to access social support from their existing networks or new social relationships, and might also promote community education about IPV and promote community support for IPV prevention and mitigation. Future studies on IPV interventions should assess how these approaches impact the incidence of IPV, social and mental health outcomes across different populations’ of IPV survivors.

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2009 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177.s001

  • View Article
  • PubMed/NCBI
  • Google Scholar
  • 2. Breiding M, Basile KC, Smith SG, Black MC, Mahendra RR. Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Version 2.0. 2015.
  • 12. Thomas H. Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Toronto: Effective Public Health Practice Project McMaster University; 2003.
  • 14. Programme CAS. CASP Qualitative Research Checklist. 2018.
  • 43. McLeroy KR, Norton BL, Kegler MC, Burdine JN, Sumaya CV. Community-based interventions. American Public Health Association; 2003.

literature review on intimate partner violence

  • Publisher Home
  • Editorial Board
  • Submit Manuscript

REVIEW ARTICLE

Intimate partner violence: a literature review, article information.

literature review on intimate partner violence

Identifiers and Pagination:

Article history:, article metrics, crossref citations:, total statistics:, unique statistics:.

Creative Commons License

Background:

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a complex issue that appears to be more prevalent in developing nations. Many factors contribute to this problem.

This article aimed to review and synthesize available knowledge on the subject of Intimate Partner Violence. It provides specific information that fills the knowledge gap noted in more global reports by the World Health Organization.

A literature search was conducted in English and Spanish in EBSCO and Scopus and included the keywords “Intimate, Partner, Violence, IPV.” The articles included in this review cover the results of empirical studies published from 2004 to 2020.

The results show that IPV is associated with cultural, socioeconomic, and educational influences. Childhood experiences also appear to contribute to the development of this problem.

Conclusion:

Only a few studies are focusing on empirically validated interventions to solve IPV. Well-implemented cultural change strategies appear to be a solution to the problem of IPV. Future research should focus on examining the results of strategies or interventions aimed to solve the problem of IPV.

1. INTRODUCTION

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most prevalent type of violence against women worldwide. It is defined as a “behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviors” [ 1 ]. The United Nations has defined violence against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life” [ 2 ].

The percentage of women experiencing violence in various parts of the world has been recorded. Different factors appear to influence the incidence of this worldwide problem. However, there are no single studies that summarize findings on the subject. The aim of this article was to review available knowledge regarding Intimate Partner Violence. There is a need to understand this problem so that viable solutions and or preventive measures could be implemented.

2. METHODOLOGY

2.1. searching strategy.

The literature search was conducted in English and Spanish using EBSCO (Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Academic Search Premier, and Fuente Academica Premiere) and Scopus. It included the keywords “Intimate, Partner, Violence, IPV” and thematic issues on the subject, such as “depression, anxiety, body, ache.” Only the findings of empirical studies were considered. The articles ranged from 2004 to 2020. The analysis of full texts of articles was carried out several times and data were extracted according to the aim of this study.

3.1. Percentage of Women Experiencing Violence

Data presented by Women UN (2019) indicates that approximately 35 percent of women worldwide have experienced some form of violence in their lifetime [ 3 ]. One-third of women worldwide who have ever been involved in a relationship have experienced physical or sexual violence inflicted by an intimate partner [ 4 ].

With a focus on the Americas, the percentage of women who have experienced physical or sexual IPV in the past 12 months progressively increases as one examines data from North, Central and South America (1.1% in Canada, 6.6% in the United States, 7.8% in Costa Rica, and 27.1% in Bolivia) [ 5 ]. Compared to countries in Central and South America, Bolivia reports the highest percentage (52.3%) of women ever experiencing physical violence by an intimate partner. However, the percentage of women reporting ever experiencing sexual violence by an intimate partner was similar across nations ( i.e. , Bolivia 15.2%, Nicaragua 13.1%, Guatemala 12.3%, Colombia 11.8%, Ecuador 11.5%, El Salvador 11.5%, Haiti 10.8%, and Peru 9.4%). Moreover, the percentage of women who reported ever experiencing IPV in the form of emotional abuse (insults, humiliation, intimidation, and threats of harm) also occurred relatively equally across nations ( e.g. , Nicaragua 47.8%, El Salvador 44.2%, Guatemala 42.2%, Colombia, 41.5%, Ecuador 40.7%), with a few exceptions (Haiti 17.0%, Dominican Republic 26.1%) [ 6 ].

Data from Colombia indicates that 31.1% of women in that country reported experiencing economic or patrimonial violence from an intimate partner, 7.6% experienced IPV in the form of sexual violence, and 64% experienced psychological violence from a partner [ 7 ]. Similar numbers have been recorded in Ecuador. The National Institute of Statistics and Censuses (INEC 2019) notes that 43 out of 100 women in the country have experienced some form of IPV. Of this group, 40.8% of women reported experiencing psychological violence ( e.g. , humiliation, insults, being threatened with a weapon), 25% said they were victims of physical violence and 8.3% were victims of sexual violence [ 8 ].

3.2. Social Norms and Sociodemographic Factors

Women must contend with societal norms related to domestic violence. For example, in some countries, male dominance or patriarchal systems in which the wife is considered a possession or property of the husband are considered the societal norm. Some studies have shown that social attitudes justifying and or accepting IPV in some developing nations or specific localities increase the incidence of this problem in those areas. Women in these places are likely more tolerant of this problem if it were to happen to them and are less likely to leave a violent relationship [ 9 - 12 ]. Likewise, exposure to violence perpetrated by political groups ( e.g. , police, armed forces) also seems to increase the prevalence of IPV in nations [ 13 - 15 ].

Sociodemographic factors also appear to affect the prevalence of IPV. Studies around the globe indicate that a low level of education in women may put them at a higher risk for IPV [ 16 - 19 ]. This low level of educational attainment could be related to existent socioeconomic disadvantages, a culturally upheld belief that women do not need education because their assigned role is to stay at home and take care of household duties, including the raising of children, and a lack of a network of support that could potentially encourage their educational advancement. For example, a recent study suggested that Latinas who experience IPV “tend to be younger, have more socioeconomic disadvantage, and are fearful of seeking help from authorities” [ 20 ].

The marital status of female victims of IPV has been extensively studied, with common findings of IPV appearing to happen less often to married women in comparison to divorced or separated women in most countries [ 21 , 22 ]. However, the findings must be considered within cultural contexts. As previously stated, in some countries, married women are viewed as property of the husband, and physical aggression or violence towards the wife is tolerated or accepted within the culture. In general, cohabitating couples worldwide report higher rates of IPV. The higher rates could be related to socioeconomic status or to the perception that the relationship is less permanent. More studies need to address the contributing factors as to why cohabitating women tend to have a higher rate of IPV compared to married women, as well as examine the norms by varying cultures and their effect on IPV. Single women typically report less rates of IPV in comparison to married, divorced or separated women. However, this trend appears to vary by country. Single women in Canada and Australia, for example, report higher rates of IPV in comparison to married women in these two nations [ 22 ]. Possible contributing factors for the increase in IPV among single women in Canada and Australia could be related to age or to lifestyle choices. Riskier lifestyles could potentially expose younger women to a greater chance of experiencing intimate partner violence. Latin American and Caribbean nations, data indicate that IPV typically occurs more often among urban women in comparison to rural women [ 23 ]. Nonetheless, some studies in the United States suggest that IPV typically occurs more often in rural settings and small towns [ 24 , 25 ]. Further studies are needed to address the underlying causes of the link between sociodemographic factors and IPV.

3.3. Childhood Victimization

In addition to possible social factors influencing the rates of IPV, women impacted by childhood victimization can experience long term negative effects, and data suggest that “childhood victimization and domestic violence are highly correlated” [ 26 ]. For example, women who witnessed IPV during their childhood are more prone to experiencing IPV as adults [ 27 - 30 ]. Similarly, studies suggest that women who have been physically abused [ 31 - 34 ] or sexually abused [ 35 - 38 ] in childhood also are more likely to experience IPV in adulthood.

3.4. Mental Health

Research has shown that women who experienced IPV report increased levels of mental health symptomatology. For example, women who were abused by an intimate partner reported increased symptoms of depression, anxiety [ 39 , 40 ], and obsessive-compulsive characteristics [ 40 ]. Similarly, women exposed to IPV and who present depressive symptoms exhibit significant weight gain [ 41 ]. Low-income post-partum women in Brazil who experienced IPV are at a greater risk of presenting suicidal ideation [ 42 ], and women living in poverty in Nicaragua who were victims of IPV and perceived they did not receive social support from their families were more likely to indicate they had attempted suicide at some point in their lives [ 43 ]. There appears to be a bidirectional relationship between IPV and mental health problems. More specifically, at least one study has shown that women who experienced child abuse and subsequently developed mental health illnesses ( i.e. , Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, symptoms of depression, binge drinking) were more likely to experience IPV during adulthood [ 44 ].

3.5. Health Complains and Illnesses

In addition to mental health ailments, women victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), in its many forms, have self-reported having frequent health complaints and illnesses. Because of the complexity of physical ailments and symptoms, research studies are limited in addressing the specific correlations of physical health and IVP [ 45 ]. For example, Onur et al. (2020) wrote that women diagnosed with Fibromyalgia Syndrome (characterized by chronic musculoskeletal pain) also reported being victims of partner violence (physical, social, economic, and emotional) [ 46 ]. Raya et al. (2004) observed that Andalusian women victims of IPV perpetration were more likely to suffer from hypertension and asthma [ 47 ]. More recently, Soleimania et al. (2017) observed that Iranian women who had experienced IPV in the form of psychological abuse had a greater incidence of somatic symptoms than women who had not experienced any form of abuse [ 48 ]. There appears to be an additive effect on the body when it comes to experiencing abuse. Women who have experienced various forms of abuse in their life ( e.g. , child abuse, past IPV, present IPV, and financial problems) have reported higher levels of somatic complaints in comparison to women who had only experienced IPV [ 49 ]. At least one study noticed that there was a greater incidence of type 2 diabetes in women who reported experiencing physical intimate partner violence [ 50 ].

3.6. Utilization of Health Care Providers

Aside from the various somatic complaints that are being described by women who have experienced IVP, Lo Fo Wong, et al. (2007), observed that women who had been physically and psychologically abused by their partners used healthcare providers more often and were also prescribed pain medication more frequently [ 51 ]. Also, Comeau, et al. (2012) noticed that women who had been abused by their intimate partners used antidepressants to deal with symptoms of depression [ 52 ]. Lastly, higher use of anxiolytics and antidepressants also has been observed in women who had suffered intimate partner violence [ 53 ].

3.7. Use of Cigarettes

Aside from using various types of medications, Sullivan et al. (2015) noticed that women who had been victims of IPV tend to smoke greater quantities of cigarettes in comparison to women who have not experienced violence [ 54 ]. Furthermore, it has also been observed that women who experienced perinatal IPV were twice as likely to smoke cigarettes in comparison to women without a history of IPV [ 55 ]. It is worth noting that smoking during pregnancy is a strong predictor of low birth weight [ 55 - 57 ] and preterm birth [ 58 ]. Children born under these circumstances are more prone to being described as having more social problems, attention problems, as well as anxiety and depression by age 7 [ 59 ] and low birth weight adolescents show increased levels of mental health problems (emotional symptoms, social problems, and attention deficit) [ 60 ].

3.8. Current Scenario

Many contributing factors impact women suffering from intimate partner violence. These influences could be cultural, socioeconomic, political, and educational, to name a few. Major findings support the notion that women, who are less educated, socioeconomically disadvantaged, reside in patriarchal societies, or cohabitate are at greater risk of IPV. Another contributing factor is mental health symptomology. Further analysis is needed to better understand the correlation between mental health issues and IPV. Is poor mental health a precursor to IPV, or is IPV a potential cause for poor mental health? Various cultures have differing views pertaining to the topic of mental health and address this problem differently. Without proper treatment and proper advocacy for mental health, some women may feel caught in a cycle of hopelessness, stay in abusive relationships, and contribute to the social perception that IPV is an acceptable way of life.

With the current global crisis of COVID-19 and governments issuing stay-at-home orders, psychologists predict an increase in intimate partner violence. The Secretary-General of the United Nations stated the orders have led to a “horrifying global surge” in IPV [ 61 ]. Because of the difficulty to flee from the abusers, women may be at an even higher risk of “IPV-related health issues” [ 61 ]. The global pandemic is a major contributing factor to job loss, economic stress, and evictions. Economic crisis can potentially negatively impact relationships, regardless of marital status. With the looming effects of the pandemic, the World Health Organization will need to consider the level of depression, anxiety, stress, marital status, and socioeconomic status in women across varying cultures, and how the pandemic may have contributed to an increase in IPV.

3.9. Interventions

Empirically validated interventions aimed to address IPV are scarce. One study observed positive results through the implementation of a culturally relevant program with immigrants of Mexican origin. Specifically, the study observed that Latino men benefited from attending group sessions aimed to address, among others, their histories of childhood maltreatment, their challenges encountering different gender roles as they moved to the United States, their sense of control over their wives, and the development of “unequal but non-abusive relationships”. The program included teaching men non-aggressive strategies and problem-solving skills through role-plays. Through these interventions, men became more understanding of their wives’ experiences, as they transition to the United States, learned the impact of their aggressive behavior, and also learned to cooperate more within the home [ 62 ]. In addition to this report, another study focused on the empowerment of Latino women through the Moms’ Empowerment Program. This intervention included providing advocacy services and social support to women. It targeted women’s self-blame for experiencing IPV and helped women set forth goals to promote change in their lives while focusing on preserving their children’s safety. Overall, the program appeared to be successful in helping reduce women’s exposure to mild violence and physical assaults [ 63 ]. Another recent study carried out in Brazil observed positive results with the implementation of cognitive-behavioral interventions in women victims of IPV. Thirteen sessions with a weekly frequency, which included, among others, psychoeducation, problem-solving, and cognitive restructuring, showed effectiveness in reducing women's anxiety and depression and increasing their life satisfaction [ 64 ]. Aside from individual or group interventions, one study carried in Ghana examined the utilization of community-based structures ( i.e. , police, health and welfare organizations, and religious leaders) to raise awareness to the problem of violence against women, to guide talks about gender equality, challenge social norms that endorse violence, provide counseling services to couples experiencing IPV, and create referral structures to help victims.. The prevalence of IPV in the communities that received these types of interventions was lower than that of those areas that did not receive these services [ 65 ].

IVP is a complex issue that needs continued research and attention to provide better interventions. Global findings indicate that certain cultural groups are more tolerant of this problem and that they may tend to normalize it and/or accept it. Overall, IPV is more widespread in developing nations, especially those experiencing political-related-violence. Considering these findings, World Health Organization surveys and future studies should consider assessing the incidence of IPV among immigrants to the United States with histories of having experienced political violence. A study in 2008 showed that eleven percent of immigrant Latinos to the United States had experienced political violence in their countries of origin. Latino women who had lived this type of violence also reported experiences of feeling discriminated [ 66 ]. Future studies should focus their attention on clarifying these findings and their possible relationship with IPV, so that prompt interventions with immigrant populations could be developed.

A recent study shows that Hispanics and Blacks in the United States constantly worry about possibly experiencing violence perpetrated by police, a form of political violence. Hispanics worry about police violence four times more than Whites and Blacks worry about this type of violence five times more than Whites [ 67 ]. Considering these results, the WHO should also explore if reports of police brutality in black or immigrant communities in the United States correlate to rates of IPV in these communities.

Although there is ample information about the various factors associated with IPV, only a few studies have focused on examining empirically validated interventions to address it. Without this knowledge, it would be impossible to truly know if available interventions work or not. Research findings suggest that women, and in particular women from marginalized groups, should receive assistance and guidance to gain access to higher education institutions. Their educational attainment likely will become a protective factor in their life that could prevent them from ever experiencing IPV. Parity in access to higher-paying jobs likely could help reduce the prevalence of IPV. Well-implemented cultural change strategies also appear to be a solution to the problem of IPV. Societal structures ( e.g. , law, religion) and organizations ( e.g. , welfare) seem to be key participants in the development of respectful and nonviolent relationships between men and women that likely could prevent IPV from ever taking place. Early detection of violence within the home and follow-up interventions could prevent children from normalizing such behavior. Health care system screenings could detect early signs and symptomatology of IPV. These screenings could potentially ensure that multisystem interventions be implemented to disrupt the development of IPV and provide survivors with needed support. Lastly, research suggests that governments and their officials should refrain from endorsing politically violent acts. Governmental acts of violence likely could endorse or ignite the problem of IPV in nations.

CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION

Not applicable.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Declared none.

Track Your Manuscript

Published contents, about the editor, journal metrics, readership statistics:, total views/downloads: 2,660,871, unique views/downloads: 571,686, about the journal, table of contents.

  • INTRODUCTION
  • Searching Strategy
  • Percentage of Women Experiencing Violence
  • Social Norms and Sociodemographic Factors
  • Childhood Victimization
  • Mental Health
  • Health Complains and Illnesses
  • Utilization of Health Care Providers
  • Use of Cigarettes
  • Current Scenario
  • Interventions

Press Release

Bentham open welcomes sultan idris university of education (upsi) as institutional member.

Bentham Open is pleased to welcome Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI), Malaysia as Institutional Member. The partnership allows the researchers from the university to publish their research under an Open Access license with specified fee discounts. Bentham Open welcomes institutions and organizations from world over to join as Institutional Member and avail a host of benefits for their researchers.

Sultan Idris University of Education (UPSI) was established in 1922 and was known as the first Teacher Training College of Malaya. It is known as one of the oldest universities in Malaysia. UPSI was later upgraded to a full university institution on 1 May, 1997, an upgrade from their previous college status. Their aim to provide exceptional leadership in the field of education continues until today and has produced quality graduates to act as future educators to students in the primary and secondary level.

Bentham Open publishes a number of peer-reviewed, open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, medicine, technology and social sciences. Bentham Open provides researchers a platform to rapidly publish their research in a good-quality peer-reviewed journal. All peer-reviewed accepted submissions meeting high research and ethical standards are published with free access to all.

Ministry Of Health, Jordan joins Bentham Open as Institutional Member

Bentham Open is pleased to announce an Institutional Member partnership with the Ministry of Health, Jordan . The partnership provides the opportunity to the researchers, from the university, to publish their research under an Open Access license with specified fee concessions. Bentham Open welcomes institutions and organizations from the world over to join as Institutional Member and avail a host of benefits for their researchers.

The first Ministry of Health in Jordan was established in 1950. The Ministry began its duties in 1951, the beginning of the health development boom in Jordan. The first accomplishment was the establishment of six departments in the districts headed by a physician and under the central administration of the Ministry. The Ministry of Health undertakes all health affairs in the Kingdom and its accredited hospitals include AL-Basheer Hospital, Zarqa Governmental Hospital, University of Jordan Hospital, Prince Hashem Military Hospital and Karak Governmental Hospital.

Bentham Open publishes a number of peer-reviewed, open access journals. These free-to-view online journals cover all major disciplines of science, medicine, technology and social sciences. Bentham Open provides researchers a platform to rapidly publish their research in a good-quality peer-reviewed journal. All peer-reviewed, accepted submissions meeting high research and ethical standards are published with free access to all.

Porto University joins Bentham Open as Institutional Member

Bentham Open is pleased to announce an Institutional Member partnership with the Porto University, Faculty of Dental Medicine (FMDUP) . The partnership provides the opportunity to the researchers, from the university, to publish their research under an Open Access license with specified fee concessions. Bentham Open welcomes institutions and organizations from world over to join as Institutional Member and avail a host of benefits for their researchers.

The Porto University was founded in 1911. Porto University create scientific, cultural and artistic knowledge, higher education training strongly anchored in research, the social and economic valorization of knowledge and active participation in the progress of the communities in which it operates.

Join Our Editorial Board

The Open Psychology Journal is an Open Access online journal, which publishes research articles, reviews, letters, case reports and guest-edited single topic issues in all areas of psychology. Bentham Open ensures speedy peer review process and accepted papers are published within 2 weeks of final acceptance.

The Open Psychology Journal is committed to ensuring high quality of research published. We believe that a dedicated and committed team of editors and reviewers make it possible to ensure the quality of the research papers. The overall standing of a journal is in a way, reflective of the quality of its Editor(s) and Editorial Board and its members.

The Open Psychology Journal is seeking energetic and qualified researchers to join its editorial board team as Editorial Board Members or reviewers.

  • Experience in psychology with an academic degree.
  • At least 20 publication records of articles and /or books related to the field of psychology or in a specific research field.
  • Proficiency in English language.
  • Offer advice on journals’ policy and scope.
  • Submit or solicit at least one article for the journal annually.
  • Contribute and/or solicit Guest Edited thematic issues to the journal in a hot area (at least one thematic issue every two years).
  • Peer-review of articles for the journal, which are in the area of expertise (2 to 3 times per year).

If you are interested in becoming our Editorial Board member, please submit the following information to [email protected] . We will respond to your inquiry shortly.

  • Email address
  • City, State, Country
  • Name of your institution
  • Department or Division
  • Website of institution
  • Your title or position
  • Your highest degree
  • Complete list of publications and h-index
  • Interested field(s)

Testimonials

"Open access will revolutionize 21 st century knowledge work and accelerate the diffusion of ideas and evidence that support just in time learning and the evolution of thinking in a number of disciplines."

"It is important that students and researchers from all over the world can have easy access to relevant, high-standard and timely scientific information. This is exactly what Open Access Journals provide and this is the reason why I support this endeavor."

"Publishing research articles is the key for future scientific progress. Open Access publishing is therefore of utmost importance for wider dissemination of information, and will help serving the best interest of the scientific community."

"Open access journals are a novel concept in the medical literature. They offer accessible information to a wide variety of individuals, including physicians, medical students, clinical investigators, and the general public. They are an outstanding source of medical and scientific information."

"Open access journals are extremely useful for graduate students, investigators and all other interested persons to read important scientific articles and subscribe scientific journals. Indeed, the research articles span a wide range of area and of high quality. This is specially a must for researchers belonging to institutions with limited library facility and funding to subscribe scientific journals."

"Open access journals represent a major break-through in publishing. They provide easy access to the latest research on a wide variety of issues. Relevant and timely articles are made available in a fraction of the time taken by more conventional publishers. Articles are of uniformly high quality and written by the world's leading authorities."

"Open access journals have transformed the way scientific data is published and disseminated: particularly, whilst ensuring a high quality standard and transparency in the editorial process, they have increased the access to the scientific literature by those researchers that have limited library support or that are working on small budgets."

"Not only do open access journals greatly improve the access to high quality information for scientists in the developing world, it also provides extra exposure for our papers."

"Open Access 'Chemistry' Journals allow the dissemination of knowledge at your finger tips without paying for the scientific content."

"In principle, all scientific journals should have open access, as should be science itself. Open access journals are very helpful for students, researchers and the general public including people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals. The articles are high standard and cover a wide area."

"The widest possible diffusion of information is critical for the advancement of science. In this perspective, open access journals are instrumental in fostering researches and achievements."

"Open access journals are very useful for all scientists as they can have quick information in the different fields of science."

"There are many scientists who can not afford the rather expensive subscriptions to scientific journals. Open access journals offer a good alternative for free access to good quality scientific information."

"Open access journals have become a fundamental tool for students, researchers, patients and the general public. Many people from institutions which do not have library or cannot afford to subscribe scientific journals benefit of them on a daily basis. The articles are among the best and cover most scientific areas."

"These journals provide researchers with a platform for rapid, open access scientific communication. The articles are of high quality and broad scope."

"Open access journals are probably one of the most important contributions to promote and diffuse science worldwide."

"Open access journals make up a new and rather revolutionary way to scientific publication. This option opens several quite interesting possibilities to disseminate openly and freely new knowledge and even to facilitate interpersonal communication among scientists."

"Open access journals are freely available online throughout the world, for you to read, download, copy, distribute, and use. The articles published in the open access journals are high quality and cover a wide range of fields."

"Open Access journals offer an innovative and efficient way of publication for academics and professionals in a wide range of disciplines. The papers published are of high quality after rigorous peer review and they are Indexed in: major international databases. I read Open Access journals to keep abreast of the recent development in my field of study."

"It is a modern trend for publishers to establish open access journals. Researchers, faculty members, and students will be greatly benefited by the new journals of Bentham Science Publishers Ltd. in this category."

  • Open access
  • Published: 09 August 2019

The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Sarah Dokkedahl   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3090-4660 1 ,
  • Robin Niels Kok 2 , 3 ,
  • Siobhan Murphy 1 ,
  • Trine Rønde Kristensen 4 ,
  • Ditte Bech-Hansen 1 &
  • Ask Elklit 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  8 , Article number:  198 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

62k Accesses

48 Citations

48 Altmetric

Metrics details

Background/aim

Psychological violence is estimated to be the most common form of intimate partner violence (IPV). Despite this, research on the independent effect of psychological violence on mental health is scarce. Moreover, the lack of a clear and consistent definition of psychological violence has made results difficult to compare. The present study therefore aims to consolidate knowledge on psychological violence by conducting a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis on the association between psychological violence and mental health problems, when controlling for other types of violence (e.g. physical and sexual) and taking into account severity, frequency, and duration of psychological violence.

The present study is registered in the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; #CRD42018116026) and the study design follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA; Additional file 1 ). A dual search will be conducted in the electronic databases PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science. Data will be extracted using Endnote and Covidence and a meta-analysis will be conducted using Metafor-package in the programming language R. The Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project will be used to assess the quality of the included studies (i.e. weak, moderate and strong).

Results and discussion

The present review will help consolidate knowledge on psychological violence by evaluating whether frequency, severity or actual “type” of psychological violence produces the most harm. A thorough quality assessment will help overcome potential limitations regarding expected variations in terminology and assessment of psychological violence.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42018116026 .

Peer Review reports

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global health problem characterized as any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm [ 1 ]. At present, it is well-documented that IPV can cause extensive mental health consequences among its victims [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. IPV can be characterized as an interpersonal trauma, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been identified in 31–84.4% of women exposed to IPV [ 2 ]; along with other comorbid symptoms such as depression, anxiety, suicidality, substance abuse and sleep disturbances [ 2 , 5 , 6 ].

The subtype of psychological violence (compared to physical and sexual violence) is estimated to be the most common form of IPV in both the USA [ 7 ] and Europe [ 8 ], affecting between 35 and 49% of men and women. This has led legislators in some European countries to criminalize psychological violence as an independent offence, making it equally punishable as physical violence (e.g. Norway [ 9 ] and England [ 10 ]). Although some researchers have argued that psychological violence in itself cannot be classified as a trauma, as it does not meet the first criterion of diagnosing PTSD (i.e. threat to life or physical integrity [ 11 , 12 ]), a more recent review on IPV and mental health argues that psychological violence can independently cause PTSD, depression and anxiety [ 13 ].

Despite both legal recognition of psychological violence and documentation of its effect on mental health, the conceptualization of the phenomenon is ambiguous in both research and clinical practice. Acts of psychological violence are distributed along a continuum starting from what is commonly termed psychological aggression (e.g. yelling and insults) and ending with more severe abuse, often labelled coercion (e.g. threats and isolation). How we interpret psychological aggression and how we distinguish it from more severe abuse depends, among other things, on the context in which it occurs, when it occurred in a sequence, how it was interpreted and whether it was perceived as abusive [ 11 ].

Another challenge is that psychological violence is often characterized in different ways. For example, the conceptualization of “coercive control” can generally be understood in two ways: firstly, as an overall attempt to control one’s partner, in which IPV is a way of achieving control; secondly, as a subtype of IPV which is similar to—or a part of—the concept of psychological violence. The former is described in a structural perspective as more severe and gender-asymmetrical and is generally understood to be a representation of gender inequality [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 ]. The latter reflects a continuum of IPV from psychological aggression to more controlling behaviours constituting an assault [ 11 ]. Moreover, these are theoretical distinctions that have proven difficult for researchers and practitioners to conceptualize and apply.

The distinction between psychological violence and coercion is evident from the WHO, who define psychological violence (i.e. emotional or psychological abuse) such as “insults, belittling, constant humiliation, intimidation (e.g. destroying things), threats of harm, threats to take away children”, while controlling behaviour is defined as “isolating a person from family and friends; monitoring their movements; and restricting access to financial resources, employment, education or medical care” [ 1 ] (p. 1). The specific acts of violence separate these two definitions, while the overall psychological harm combines them. Likewise, the European Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE) states an overall definition of psychological violence, which can be understood from the perspective of caused harm: “Any act or behaviour which causes psychological harm to the partner or former partner. Psychological violence can take the form of, among others, coercion, defamation, a verbal insult or harassment” 19 (p. 45).

These variations in terminology are inevitably reflected in the psychometric instruments developed to assess psychological violence (Table 1 ; identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Unit [ 20 ] against IPV in Denmark, LUV [ 21 ]). Indeed, the varying use of subscales (e.g. #7 and #9) and differing definitions of psychological violence make the findings from these studies difficult to compare and stresses the need to evaluate how the effect on mental health is influenced by such variations. For example, some instruments assess psychological aggression (e.g. #10), while others measure more severe controlling behaviours (e.g. #4). Furthermore, other instruments focus less on the act of violence and more on the effect on the victim (e.g. #12). When measuring the effect of psychological violence on mental health, the difference between acts and effects can be crucial. Evidence demonstrates that some acts defined as psychologically violent (i.e. threats to kill/harm) have been found to significantly load on a physical violence factor, most likely due to the aspect of physical threat, which makes the psychological and physical aspect hard to differentiate [ 11 ]. Furthermore, a majority of these assessment tools make use of frequency scores that do not differentiate between the severity of items. As such, items of psychological aggression (i.e. being called “ugly” and “worthless”) are equated to severe controlling behaviour and threats (i.e. threats to kill or take away children). This exemplifies how important these distinctions are if we wish to understand the independent effect of psychological violence on mental health. Examining mental health while evaluating the instruments used to measure the phenomenon will help us understand whether severity, frequency or actual “type” of psychological violence produces the most harm on the victim’s mental health [ 11 ].

In addition to problems with the conceptualization, a number of methodological challenges further characterize the field, e.g. sampling, design, scoring and gender bias [ 11 ]. Focusing on psychological aggression in lesbian, gay and bisexual individuals, Mason et al. [ 22 ] highlight the need for future research to clearly and consistently define psychological violence and separate it from other types of violence seeing that a more consistent definition will facilitate better comparisons across studies. The research group further stresses that scoring methods (e.g. frequency vs. dichotomous scoring) influence the magnitude of the effect size, which makes results difficult to compare. This challenge is further complicated by the use of self-administered questionnaires that may lack systematic development [ 22 ]. Moreover, Follingstad [ 11 ] emphasizes the need to differentiate between samples (i.e. dating relationships and marital or long-term cohabiting relationships), seeing that dating relationships are characterized by quantitatively and qualitatively less psychological violence. Finally, the majority of assessment tools are developed to specifically measure female victimization of psychological violence, despite male victimization being reported at equally high rates in some studies [ 7 ]. Although fewer studies have focused on the effects on mental health among male victims of psychological violence, studies indicate that they too present symptoms of anxiety, depression and sleep disturbances [ 13 , 23 ].

The aim of the present systematic review is to build on existing knowledge [ 13 ] concerning the effect of psychological violence on mental health, while evaluating the psychometric instruments used to assess psychological violence about how they conceptualize the phenomenon. To this day, most studies on IPV and mental health have pooled scores of physical, psychological and sexual IPV in their reporting [ 2 , 4 ], making a distinction of the individual effect of psychological violence difficult. When directly examining the effect of psychological violence, the lack of a clear and consistent definition of psychological violence has made results difficult to compare [ 13 , 22 ]. Consequently, important information is lost. The present study therefore aims to consolidate knowledge on psychological violence by evaluating whether frequency, severity or actual “type” of psychological aggression is associated with the most harm on mental health [ 11 ]. Methodological challenges will be considered by conducting quality assessments of all included studies, and results will control for the presence of physical and sexual violence (i.e. severity, duration and frequency). When possible, mediating and moderating factors will be evaluated, as well as potential gender differences. Based on the results, a discussion on assessment tools and methodological challenges will provide the grounds for recommendations concerning future research.

To sum up, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is fourfold: (1) to estimate the individual effect of psychological violence on mental health (e.g. PTSD, depression and anxiety); (2) to estimate whether frequency, severity or actual “type” of violence is associated with the most harm; (3) to investigate gender, sampling and cultural differences through moderation analyses; and (4) to discuss the somewhat vague terminology and methodological challenges.

Methods and design

Methods of review.

The present protocol has been written in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and is presented in accordance with the PRISMA-P checklist (Additional file 1 ). The protocol has further been registered in PROSPERO (#CRD42018116026).

The systematic review will be conducted as an individual and dual process by two researchers (SD + DBH) in regard to screening, eligibility and inclusion. Screening will be done on a title basis, followed by an abstract and full-text basis. A third researcher (RK) from the team will be consulted to resolve issues regarding disagreement of eligibility and inclusion on a full-text basis. If sufficient data can be extracted, a random-effects meta-analysis will be conducted on the extracted data.

It is expected that not all studies report the recorded data on psychological violence, but rather cluster subtypes of IPV (i.e. physical, sexual and psychological violence). In such cases, the corresponding authors will be contacted and invited to share the raw data.

Key definitions of the systematic review

Intimate partner violence.

As proposed in a statistical definition by EIGE, IPV is defined as “any act of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occurs between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim” [ 19 ] (p. 44). This definition has been proposed to aid the EU member states to collect and compare administrative data on violence against women in a standardized manner [ 19 ].

  • Psychological violence

A broad terminology for psychological violence is used in both scientific literature and in clinical practice (e.g. psychological violence, emotional abuse, coercion, psychological aggression). For clarity, this review will use the term psychological violence seeing that this definition links it directly to other types of IPV (e.g. physical or sexual violence), while emphasizing a core psychological aspect of harm in both the act of perpetration as well as the effect of victimization. The variation in terminology will shortly be addressed in the discussion.

In the current protocol, psychological violence will be defined by an overall definition combining that of both the WHO [ 1 ] (i.e. both emotional/psychological abuse and controlling behaviours) and the European Institute of Gender Equality [ 19 ]: “Any act or behaviour which causes psychological harm to the partner or former partner. Psychological violence can take the form of, among others, coercion, defamation, a verbal insult or harassment” [ 19 ] (p. 45), including belittling, constant humiliation, intimidation (e.g. destroying things), threats of harm, threats to take away children and/or isolating a person from family and friends; monitoring their movements; and restricting access to financial resources, employment, education or medical care [ 1 ] (p. 1). A broad definition will allow for studies using varying definitions to be included and will be assessed through subgroup analyses. The different definitions will be evaluated and discussed based on their effect on mental health.

Mental health in this context

As mentioned above, it has previously been argued that psychological violence alone cannot be characterized as a trauma [ 11 ]. However, recent studies have identified an association between psychological violence and PTSD [ 13 ]. Based on these findings, the authors consider psychological violence a potential traumatic event and wish to further examine the relationship between psychological violence and PTSD. Other mental health consequences identified are based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and comorbid mental health problems of PTSD [ 24 ], i.e. depression, anxiety, alcohol or drug abuse, suicidality, sexual problems, sleep problems, problems with concentration, somatization and functional problems (e.g. social, educational, or occupational) as well as feelings of shame and guilt.

Search method

A dual search will be conducted in the electronic databases PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science. Other methods used for identifying relevant research include reference checking and hand-searching of grey literature. Furthermore, the following scientific journals will be hand-searched: Journal of Interpersonal Violence and Journal of Violence and Victims .

Criteria for including studies

The review will include studies of psychological violence on mental health when controlling for other types of partner abuse. Hence, studies including an adult (≥ 18 years) population of victims of IPV (dating samples, national samples, clinical settings, etc.) that report on psychological violence specifically. Many studies are expected to include groups of comparison (e.g. non-abused or other types of abuse); however, comparisons are not required.

Furthermore, the review will only include peer-reviewed articles in English, German, Dutch or Scandinavian languages (i.e. Norwegian, Swedish or Danish).

Criteria for excluding studies

The review will exclude case studies, reviews, commentaries, editorials, letters to editorials, book chapters and other non-primary research articles.

Search string

See Table 2 for the PsycINFO search string.

Main outcome of interest

To investigate the independent effect of psychological violence on mental health. A meta-analysis will be performed to estimate the effect of psychological violence on PTSD, depression and anxiety. A narrative summary will present all related mental health problems as defined by the NICE guidelines [ 24 ].

Secondary outcomes of interest include the following:

How does “type” of psychological violence affect mental health?

How does frequency and severity affect mental health outcomes? (e.g. high frequency and/or low severity or low frequency and/or high severity).

Are there potential gender differences in mental health consequences with regard to psychological violence?

Will controlling for previous trauma affect the association between psychological violence and mental health?

Does sample population differ in mental health consequences? (e.g. dating samples vs. treatment samples)

Finally, the systematic review aims to evaluate included psychometric tools measuring psychological violence and how potential variations in the conceptualization of psychological violence affects results.

Data extraction

Data will be extracted with help from Endnote and Covidence. Meta-analyses will be conducted using the programming language R. The authors will design a data extraction form. The form will include authors, year, sample size, population, country, age, gender, design, IPV assessment tool(s), mental health assessment, primary outcome (effect size), secondary outcome(s), timeframe of assessment (lifetime or specified), scoring method(s), previous trauma and previous mental health problems. Data will be extracted by one reviewer (SD), and independently cross-checked by another reviewer (DBH). Inconsistencies in data extraction will be resolved between the reviewers by referring to the source study until a consensus is reached.

Quality assessment

The “Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies” developed by the Effective Public Health Practice Project [ 25 ] will be used to assess the quality of the included studies. This is in line with previous research evaluating IPV psychometric tools [ 26 ]. Assessment will be based on six components: (1) selection bias, (2) study design, (3) confounders, (4) blinding, (5) data collection methods and (6) withdrawals and dropouts [ 24 , 25 ]. Two researchers (SD and DBH) will classify studies on three levels: weak, moderate and strong. If classifications are inconsistent a third researcher (RK) will be involved and classification will be discussed until consensus is reached. If possible, moderation analyses will compare studies of strong vs. weak quality.

Plan for data synthesis

As demonstrated above, studies on psychological violence are quite heterogeneous in regard to conceptualization, psychometrics, sampling, design, scoring, and so forth. Therefore, we will perform a random-effects meta-analysis, because we expect high heterogeneity in the included studies. The random-effects meta-analysis assumes variance in effect across studies due to real differences in effect as well as by chance. The meta-analysis will help estimate the common effect of psychological violence on mental health (i.e. PTSD, depression and anxiety) by synthesizing individual results. If possible, moderation analyses will compare studies according to quality assessment and varying samples. The I 2 statistic will be used to test for heterogeneity, and as suggested, an I 2 statistic above 75% implies considerable heterogeneity, while an I 2 statistic below 40% is not considered to be a concern [ 27 ].

The included studies are expected to report effect sizes of varying types (i.e. correlation, regression, mean differences and association of categorical variables, e.g. odds ratio). For data synthesis, the reported effect sizes will be recoded into the same type of effect size using the programming language R. For this meta-analysis, we expect to perform a stepwise analysis according to the outcome of interest. For the main outcome of interest, as well as subgroup analyses, the meta-analysis will be conducted with effect sizes based on correlations. Additionally, the impact of the duration and frequency of psychological violence will be estimated by using meta-regression. The Metafor-package for the programming language R will be applied to conduct the meta-analysis [ 28 ].

The present review will build on existing knowledge by statistically synthesizing results on the effect of psychological violence on mental health. The review will help consolidate knowledge on psychological violence by evaluating whether frequency, severity or actual “type” of psychological violence produces the most harm. This will strengthen our knowledge on psychological violence, and how best to assess and conceptualize the phenomenon.

While conducting the systematic review, we expect to encounter several limitations. The varying terminology and definitions of psychological violence will make results difficult to compare, just as the many and varying psychometrics tools will (Table 1 ). This is further complicated by the fact that many studies are likely to not even use validated instruments but instead base their results on a few self-constructed items. The review will aim to overcome these limitations by thorough quality assessment of the included studies with help from the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies [ 25 ] and by performing relevant subgroup analyses. This does not only apply to psychological violence, but also mental health definitions and the psychometric instruments used to assess symptomatology. By critically examining the applied definitions and terminology as well as methodological challenges (e.g. sampling, design, scoring and gender bias) the review will serve as a status quo of the field and make grounds for future recommendations.

Finally, the systematic review is expected to have several clinical implications. We expect the meta-analysis to deepen our understanding of the different subtypes of psychological violence and how they independently interact with mental health outcomes. Likewise, we expect to give clarity on psychological violence and whether it should be understood as a traumatic event equal to other types of abuse (e.g. physical or sexual violence). Developing both preventive efforts and treatment programmes such information is important if we wish to directly target the needs of those affected by psychological violence and raise awareness to encourage both victims and perpetrators to seek help.

In research, this systematic review is expected to inspire researchers to clearly and consistently define psychological violence while carefully considering the psychometrics used to measure the phenomenon, as well as other methodological challenges. Moreover, we expect to get clarity on any potential gender bias.

On a final note, this work will hopefully inspire others to conduct similar research on children who grow up as either witnesses or victims of psychological violence.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

World Health Organization. Understanding and addressing violence against women: 2012. Retrieved from: http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/77432/WHO_RHR_12.36_eng.pdf?sequence=1 .

Golding JM. Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for mental disorders: A meta-analysis. J Fam Violence. 1999;14(2):99–132.

Article   Google Scholar  

Dutton MA, Green BL, Kaltman SI, Roesch DM, Zeffiro TA, Krause ED. Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21(7):955–68.

Johnson DM, Zlotnick C, Perez S. The relative contribution of abuse severity and PTSD severity on the psychiatric and social morbidity of battered women in shelters. Behavior Therapy. 2008;39:232–41.

Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus LJ, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, et al. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLOS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001439.

Pigeon WR, Cerulli CJD, Richards HMS, He H, Perlis M, Caine E. Sleep disturbances and their association with mental health among women exposed to intimate partner violence. J Women’s Health. 2011;20(12):1923–9.

Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, Smith SG, Walters ML, Merrick MT, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 summary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and. Prevention. 2011; Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf .

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (EUAFR). Violence against women, an EU-wide survey: Main results. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights; 2014. Retrieved from https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/violence-against-women-eu-wide-survey-main-results-report .

Aas G, Andersen T. Mishandlingsbestemmelsen – En evaluering av loven mot mishandling I nære relasjoner jf. Strl. § 219 (§ 282/283). Politihøgskolen, Oslo; 2017. Retrieved from: https://phs.brage.unit.no/phs-xmlui/handle/11250/2427624 .

Home Office. Controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship – statutory guidance. framework. December, 2015; Retrieved from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/482528/Controlling_or_coercive_behaviour_-_statutory_guidance.pdf .

Follingstad DR. The impact of psychological aggression on women’s mental health and behavior – the status of the field. Trauma, Violence, Abuse. 2009;10(3):271–89.

American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders : DSM - IV - TR . Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000.

Google Scholar  

Lagdon S, Armour C. Stringer. Adult experiences of mental health outcomes as a result of intimate partner violence victimization: A systematic review. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2014;5:24794.

Stark E. Coercive control. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007.

Stark E. Do violent acts equal abuse? Sex roles. 2010;62:201–11.

Johnson MP. Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence. J Marriage Fam. 1995;57(2):283–94.

Johnson MP. A typology of domestic violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press; 2008.

Walby S, Towers J. Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology Criminal Justice. 2018;18(1):7–28.

EIGE. Glossary of definitions of rape, femicide, and intimate partner violence; 2017. Retrieved from: https://eige.europa.eu/rdc/eige-publications/glossary-definitions-rape-femicide-and-intimate-partner-violence

Thompson MP, Basile KC, Hertz MF, Sitterle D. Measuring intimate violence victimization and perpetration: A compendium of assessment tools. Atlanta (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center Injury. Prev Control. 2006.

Oldrup, H., Andersen, S., Kjær. S., Nielsen, NH., von Rosen, CB. Psykiske, fysiske og sociale konsekvenser af psykisk vold i parforhold – kortlægning af forskning. Lev Uden Vold. København; 2018. Retrieved from: https://levudenvold.dk/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/rapport-konsekvenser-af-psykisk-vold-web.pdf

Mason TB, Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, Kelley ML, Minifie JB, Derlega VJ. Psychological aggression in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ intimate relationships: A review of prevalence, correlates, and measurement issues. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19:219–34.

Próspero M. The effect of coercion in aggression and mental health among reciprocally violent couples. J Fam Violence. 2008;23:195–202.

National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Post-traumatic stress disorder – the management of ptsd in adults and children in primary and secondary care. National Clinical Practice Guidelines Number 26. The Royal College of Psychiatrists & The British Psychological Society. Gaskell and the British Psychological Society. Cromwell Press Limited, Trowbridge, Wiltshire; 2005. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK56494/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK56494.pd .

National Collaborating Centre for Methods of and Tools. Qualitative assessment tool for quantitative studies. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008. (Updated 03 October, 2017). Retrieved from: https://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/14 .

Arkins B, Begley C, Higgins A. Measures for screening intimate partner violence: A systematic review. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2016;23:217–35.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Cooper H. Research synthesis and meta-analysis. 5 th Ed. Duke University: Sage Publications, Inc.; 2017.

Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36:3:1–48.

Shepard MF, Campbell JA. The Abusive Behavior Inventory: A measure of psychological and physical abuse. J Interpers Violence. 1992; 7 :291–305.

Hegarty K, Sheehan M, Schonfeld C. A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: Development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale. J Fam Violence. 1999;14:399–415.

Hegarty K, Bush R, Sheehan M. The Composite Abuse Scale: Further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings. Violence Victims. 2005;20:529–47.

Sullivan CM, Bybee DI. Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1999;67:43–53.

Sullivan CM, Parisian JA, Davidson WS. Index of psychological abuse: Development of a measure. Poster presentation at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco (CA; 1991.

O’Leary KD. Psychological abuse: A variable deserving critical attention in domestic violence. Violence Victims. 1999;14:3–23.

Rodenburg FA, Fantuzzo JW. The Measure of Wife Abuse: Steps toward the development of a comprehensive assessment technique. J Fam Violence. 1993;8:203–28.

Murphy CM, Hoover SA. Measuring emotional abuse in dating relationships as a multifactorial construct. Violence Victims. 1999;14:39–53.

Murphy C, Hoover S, Taft C. The Multidimensional Measure of Emotional Abuse: Factor structure and subscale validity. Toronto: Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy; 1999.

Hudson WW. The WALMYR assessment scales scoring manual. Tallahassee (FL): WALMYR Publishing Company; 1997.

Sackett LA, Saunders DG. The impact of different forms of psychological abuse on battered women. Violence and Victims. 1999;14:105–77.

Tolman RM. The development of a measure of psychological maltreatment of women by their male partners. Violence Victims. 1989;4:159–77.

Tolman RM. The validation of the Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. Violence Victims. 1999;14:25–37.

Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Iss. 1996;17:283–316.

Straus MA, Hamby SL, Warren WL. The Conflict Tactics Scale handbook . Los Angeles (CA: Western Psychological Services; 2003.

Foshee VA, Linder GF, Bauman KE, et al. The Safe Dates project: Theoretical basis, evaluation design, and selected baseline findings. Am J of Prev Med. 1996;12:39–47.

Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Arriaga XB, Helms RW, Koch GG, Linder GF. An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence program. Am J Public Health. 1998;88:45–50.

Smith PH, Earp JL, DeVellis R. Measuring battering: Development of the Women’s Experiences with Battering (WEB) Scale. Women’s. Womens Health. 1995;(1):273–88.

Smith PH, Smith JB, Earp JL. Beyond the measurement trap: A reconstructed conceptualized and measurement of woman battering. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 1999;23:177–93.

Smith PH, Thornton GE, DeVellis R, Earp J, Coker AL. A population-based study of the prevalence and distinctiveness of battering, physical assault, and sexual assault in intimate relationships. Violence Against Women. 2002;8:1208–32.

Sherin KM, Sinacore JM, Li XQ, Zitter RE, Shakil AHITS. A short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Fam Med. 1999;30(7):508–12.

Sherin KM, Sinacore JM, Li XQ, Zitter RE, Shakil A. HITS: a short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Fam Med. 1998;30(7):508-12.

Swahnberg IMK, Wijma B. The NorVold Abuse Abuse Questionnaire (NorAQ) – a validation of new measures of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and abuse in the health care system among women. Eur J Public Health. 2003;13:361–6.

Graham-Kevan N, Archer J. Physical aggression and control in heterosexual relationships: The effect of sampling. Violence Victims. 2003;18(2):181–96.

Follingstad DR, Coyne S, Gambone L. A representative measure of psychological aggression and its severity. Violence Victims. 2005;20(1):25–38.

Dutton, MA., Goodman, L., Schmidt, RJ. Development and validation of coercive control measure for intimate partner violence – final technical report. COSMOS Corporation: Bethesda, Maryland; 2005. Retrieved from: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/214438.pdf

Follingstad DR. A measure of psychological abuse normed on a nationally representative sample of adults. J Interpers Violence. 2010;26(6):1–21.

Rogers JM, Follingstad DR. Women’s experience to psychological abuse: Does that experience predict mental health outcomes? J Fam Violence. 2014;29(6):595–611.

Campbell DW, Campbell J, King C, Parker B, Ryan J. Violence Victims. 1994;9(3):259–74.

Campbell JC, Webster DW, Glass N. The danger assessment – validation of a lethality risk assessment instrument for intimate partner femicide. J Interpers Violence. 2009;24(4):653–74.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

These materials have received financial support from The Danish Victims Fund. The execution, content, and results of the materials are the sole responsibly of the authors. The analysis and viewpoints that have been made evident from the materials belong to the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Council of The Danish Victims Fund. Funding was granted to Sarah Dokkedahl.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

National Centre of Psychotraumatology, Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Denmark, 5230, Odense M, Denmark

Sarah Dokkedahl, Siobhan Murphy, Ditte Bech-Hansen & Ask Elklit

Department of Psychology at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

Robin Niels Kok

Centre for Innovative Medical Technology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Centre for persons subjected to violence, Frederiksberg Hospital, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Trine Rønde Kristensen

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The present protocol has been prepared and written by the corresponding author Sarah Dokkedahl, with contributions from all the co-authors. All authors have contributed to the development of the search string and Robin Kok contributed in the development of the plan for data synthesis. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Dokkedahl .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Additional file

Additional file 1:.

PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist (DOCX 30 kb)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Dokkedahl, S., Kok, R.N., Murphy, S. et al. The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect on mental health: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 8 , 198 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1118-1

Download citation

Received : 06 December 2018

Accepted : 26 July 2019

Published : 09 August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1118-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Emotional abuse, Intimate partner violence
  • Mental health
  • Psychometrics
  • Abbreviations
  • DSM Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
  • EIGE European Institute of Gender Equality
  • ICD International Classification of Diseases
  • IPV Intimate Partner Violence
  • NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
  • PMWI Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory
  • PTSD Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

  • Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
  • General enquiries: [email protected]

literature review on intimate partner violence

  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

information for practice

news, new scholarship & more from around the world

  • gary.holden@nyu.edu
  • @ Info4Practice

Methods and tools to screen and assess risks for intimate partner violence among women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in six high-income countries: A scoping review

The purpose of this review is to collate literature on approaches to screening women from culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) backgrounds for experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) and assessing risks, with a view to identifying examples of best practice and research gaps.

A scoping review methodology was adopted. Medline (Ovid), Embase, CINALH and CENTRAL databases were searched, with supplementary searches for grey literature. Results were independently screened by two reviewers. Studies were included if they focused on women from CaLD backgrounds living in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom or United States of America being screened/assessed in a health setting in relation to IPV. Data on study characteristics and key findings were extracted and critical appraisal of study quality was performed.

A total of n  = 1,320 results were yielded. After deduplication, the titles and abstracts of n  = 846 studies were screened. A total of n  = 5 studies were included in the final analysis, and four screening or risk assessment tools/methods were assessed (Danger Assessment for Immigrant Women, Safe Start, Index of Spouse Abuse and Southern Asian Violence Screen).

Conclusions

Given the documented barriers to migrant help-seeking, screening and risk assessment has an important role to play in ensuring that women from CaLD backgrounds are linked into appropriate IPV support services in a timely manner. However, there is very limited evidence to demonstrate that existing screening/risk assessment tools and strategies meet the specific needs of CaLD populations, and more attention needs to be given to intersectional experiences of violence.

Read the full article ›

Noam Shpancer Ph.D.

Domestic Violence

Predicting intimate partner violence, new research identifies warning signs for intimate partner violence..

Posted March 1, 2024 | Reviewed by Davia Sills

  • What Is Domestic Violence?
  • Find a therapist to heal from domestic violence
  • Psychologists have long been interested in identifying reliable predictors of domestic violence.
  • A pair of new studies offers insights into the attitudes and behaviors that may predict abuse.

Here's a quick (yes/no) questionnaire about your romantic relationship :

  • Does your partner often act arrogant or entitled?
  • Have you and your partner disagreed about something sexual ?
  • Have you had sex with your partner even though you were not in the mood?
  • Does your partner often create uncomfortable situations in public?
  • Does your partner often disregard your reasoning or logic because it does not agree with theirs?
  • Does your partner react negatively when you say no to something they want?
  • Does your partner resent being questioned about how they treat you?

If you answered yes to all or most of these questions, then you may be at risk for intimate partner abuse.

Many people believe that the threat of violence and aggression comes mainly from strangers: the killer lurking in the back alley, the stalker in the bushes, the home invader, the terrorist. Unfamiliar people in the neighborhood or at the front door raise our threat antennae. We teach our children to be wary of strangers. Movies and TV shows both capitalize on and propagate this fear .

Yet the data are overwhelmingly clear that this "stranger danger" fear is by and large misguided. Whatever violence you encounter in your life is astronomically more likely to come from familiar people—your family, your colleagues, your spouse. The reason most murders are fairly easy to crack is that they are overwhelmingly committed by someone in the victim’s social sphere.

Specifically, intimate partners are a common source of abuse and violence.

Researcher Lynnmarie Sardinha and colleagues (2022) of the Department of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research of the World Health Organization used their organization's vast database to review 366 studies with over 2 million women from 161 countries and areas, covering 90 percent of the global population of women and girls (15 years or older). They found that: “Globally, 27 percent of ever-partnered women aged 15–49 years are estimated to have experienced physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence in their lifetime, with 13 percent experiencing it in the past year before they were surveyed. This violence starts early, affecting adolescent girls and young women, with 24 percent of women aged 15–19 years and 26 percent of women aged 19–24 years having already experienced this violence at least once since the age of 15 years.”

The consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) are dire. A recent review by Sarah White of the University of London and colleagues (2023) looked at 201 studies involving 250,599 women, primarily from high-income countries. They conclude: “Meta-analysis suggested increased odds for all mental health outcomes associated with IPV including depression , post- traumatic stress disorder ( PTSD ), and suicidality . Clinical and community populations were exposed to high prevalence of IPV and increased likelihood of depression, PTSD, and suicidality.”

Psychologists have long been interested in identifying warning signs of violence that may help professionals and individuals respond effectively to such threats. Research has identified several behaviors that tend to precede violence, including jealousy , checking on whereabouts, using extreme charm, and, most potently, past abuse . Yet the existing research is based mostly on retroactive interviews with survivors of violence and lacks longitudinal data that would allow us to draw cause-and-effect conclusions. The prevalent assumption that warning signs covary reliably with experiences of violence has not been well tested. Finally, similar behaviors may or may not constitute reliable warning signs, depending on context, frequency, and severity.

Source: tumisu/Pixabay

Recently (2023), University of Western Ontario researcher Nicolyn Charlot and colleagues conducted two studies looking to identify warning signs that may be reliably predictive of intimate partner abuse. In Study 1, the researchers presented participants (N = 147) with a list of 200 abusive and non-abusive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (based on an extensive review of the existing literature) and asked them to indicate how frequently each item had occurred since they had started dating their partner. Around 86 percent of the sample experienced at least one instance of abuse.

Analyses using machine learning techniques revealed 17 warning signs that together accounted for 61 percent of the variance in overall abuse. The most powerful were:

  • “My partner and I had sex even though I wasn’t in the mood.”
  • “I felt like I couldn’t say no to my partner.”
  • “My partner compared me to other people.”
  • “My partner did not admit when they were wrong.”

The number and frequency of warning signs were also related to the odds of experiencing abuse. As predicted, larger numbers and higher frequencies were more powerfully predictive of abuse.

Study 2 (355 participants) used a longitudinal design to explore which warning signs may prospectively predict future violence. First (Time 1), participants were asked to indicate how frequently each of the 200 abusive and non-abusive items had occurred within their romantic relationship since they began. Six months later (Time 2), participants were presented with a list of abusive behaviors and asked to report how frequently each behavior had occurred in the interim. Most participants (89 percent) experienced at least one instance of abuse. Analyses found 12 warning signs that prospectively predicted abuse 6 months later, explaining 54 percent of the variance in overall abuse. The most powerful warning signs were: "My partner disregarded my reasoning or logic because it did not agree with theirs"; "My partner refused to compromise on an important decision"; and "My partner had mood swings."

literature review on intimate partner violence

The authors then conducted an analysis of whether abusive behaviors at Time 1 may predict overall abuse at Time 2. They identified four behavioral predictors (My partner... “treated me like I was stupid,” “tried to manipulate or control me,” “made me feel like I was crazy,” and “did things that harmed my mental health”) that together accounted for 53 percent of the variance in overall abuse. A second analysis combining the four abusive behavior variables and the 12 identified warning signs accounted for 59 percent of the variance in overall abuse (at Time 2). The authors conclude: “Findings suggest that abusive behaviors are the strongest predictors of future abuse, but, to a limited extent, warning signs can indeed predict abuse above and beyond prior experiences of violence.” In this study as well, the number and frequency of warning signs a person experiences are associated with increases in abuse over time.

Finally, the authors identified seven warning signs that were found to predict abuse across both studies, as follows:

  • My partner acted arrogant or entitled.
  • My partner and I disagreed about something sexual.
  • My partner and I had sex, even though I was not in the mood.
  • My partner created an uncomfortable situation in public.
  • My partner disregarded my reasoning or logic because it did not agree with theirs.
  • My partner reacted negatively when I said no to something they wanted.
  • My partner resented being questioned about how they treated me

The authors note that their study contains several limitations: For one, the research took place during the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have affected the participants’ experience. Second, the study was based on self-reports, which are notoriously given to distortion. Third, the samples in both studies were not representative of the general population, with low proportions of men, people of color, and gender diverse individuals. Fourth, since similar levels of abuse were found at both time points in Study 2, the warning signs identified in the study were conflated with abuse itself, which muddies their predictive power. Finally, the authors note that “abuse frequency in both studies was relatively low, suggesting that these warning signs may be more indicative of situational couple violence (SCV), which is less severe, frequent, and controlling, opposed to coercive controlling violence (CCV), which is more frequent, severe, one-sided, and typically perpetrated by men.”

Still, the authors conclude: “Our findings are still informative because they identify non-abusive behaviors that on average precede abuse… are associated with abuse… and predict abuse 6 months later.”

Noam Shpancer Ph.D.

Noam Shpancer, Ph.D., is a professor of psychology at Otterbein College and a practicing clinical psychologist in Columbus, Ohio.

  • Find a Therapist
  • Find a Treatment Center
  • Find a Psychiatrist
  • Find a Support Group
  • Find Teletherapy
  • United States
  • Brooklyn, NY
  • Chicago, IL
  • Houston, TX
  • Los Angeles, CA
  • New York, NY
  • Portland, OR
  • San Diego, CA
  • San Francisco, CA
  • Seattle, WA
  • Washington, DC
  • Asperger's
  • Bipolar Disorder
  • Chronic Pain
  • Eating Disorders
  • Passive Aggression
  • Personality
  • Goal Setting
  • Positive Psychology
  • Stopping Smoking
  • Low Sexual Desire
  • Relationships
  • Child Development
  • Therapy Center NEW
  • Diagnosis Dictionary
  • Types of Therapy

January 2024 magazine cover

Overcome burnout, your burdens, and that endless to-do list.

  • Coronavirus Disease 2019
  • Affective Forecasting
  • Neuroscience

Experiences of childhood, intimate partner, non-partner, and hate crime-related violence among a sample of people living with HIV in the epicenter of the U.S. HIV epidemic

Affiliations.

  • 1 Department of Behavioral, Social, and Health Education Sciences, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, United States.
  • 2 Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, United States.
  • 3 Hubert Department of Global Health, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, United States.
  • PMID: 38384880
  • PMCID: PMC10879432
  • DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1331855

Introduction: Experiences of violence among people living with HIV (PLWH) are thought to be highly prevalent but remain inadequately captured. As a first step toward acceptable, trauma informed practices that improve engagement and retention in care for PLWH, we must acquire more comprehensive understanding of violence experiences. We examined experiences of various forms of lifetime violence: adverse childhood experiences (ACES), intimate partner violence (IPV), non-partner violence (NPV), and hate crimes among diverse sample of PLWH in Atlanta, Georgia.

Methods: Cross sectional data collected from in- and out-of-care PLWH ( N = 285) receiving care/support from Ryan White Clinics (RWCs), AIDS Service Organizations (ASOs), or large safety-net hospital, February 2021-December 2022. As part of larger study, participants completed interviewer-administered survey and reported on experiences of violence, both lifetime and past year. Participant characteristics and select HIV-related variables were collected to further describe the sample. Univariate and bivariate analyses assessed participant characteristics across types of violence.

Results: High prevalence of past violence experiences across all types (ACES: 100%, IPV: 88.7%, NPV: 97.5%, lifetime hate crimes 93.2%). People assigned male at birth who identified as men experienced more violence than women, with exception of non-partner forced sex. Participants identifying as gay men were more likely to have experienced violence.

Conclusion: Among our sample of PLWH at the epicenter of the United States HIV epidemic, histories of interpersonal and community violence are common. Findings emphasize need for RWCs, ASOs, and hospital systems to be universally trained in trauma-informed approaches and have integrated onsite mental health and social support services.

Keywords: ACES; hate crimes; interpersonal violence; intimate partner violence; people living with HIV.

Copyright © 2024 Sales, Anderson, Livingston, Garbarino, Hadera, Rose, Carlson and Kalokhe.

  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • HIV Infections* / epidemiology
  • Infant, Newborn
  • Sexual Behavior
  • United States / epidemiology

Grants and funding

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List
  • Behav Sci (Basel)
  • PMC10886246

Logo of behavsci

Factors Associated with Revictimization in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Associated data.

All data and materials used have been provided in the Appendix A and Appendix B .

This study conducted a meta-analysis to identify the primary risk and protective factors associated with the revictimization in intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW). Out of 2382 studies initially identified in eight databases, 22 studies met the inclusion criteria and provided the necessary data for calculating pooled effect sizes. The analysis focused on non-manipulative quantitative studies examining revictimization in heterosexual women of legal age. Separate statistical analyses were performed for prospective and retrospective studies, resulting in findings related to 14 variables. The Metafor package in RStudio was used with a random-effects model. The meta-analysis revealed that childhood abuse was the most strongly associated risk factor for revictimization, while belonging to a white ethnicity was the most prominent protective factor. Other significant risk factors included alcohol and drug use, recent physical violence, severity of violence, and PTSD symptomatology. The study also found that older age was a protective factor in prospective studies. The consistency of results across different study designs and sensitivity analyses further supported the robustness of the findings. It is important to note that the existing literature on revictimization in women facing intimate partner violence is limited and exhibits significant heterogeneity in terms of methodology and conceptual frameworks.

1. Introduction

1.1. violence against women and revictimization.

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is a complex phenomenon that has become a major social, global, and public health problem that chronically affects women’s physical and mental health [ 1 ]. It is a commonly recurrent problem and tends to escalate both in the levels of frequency and severity as the duration of the intimate partner relationship increases [ 2 ]. In addition, having suffered violence on one occasion not only increases the risk of being assaulted again by the same partner, but also in future relationships. In this sense, between 22.9% and 56% of women who suffered IPVAW already had previous histories of victimization in previous intimate partner relationships [ 3 ]. The consequences of re-experiencing abusive situations at the hands of a partner or ex-partner are much more severe and long-lasting than when there is a single episode of violence and have a more negative effect on the victim’s ability to recover psychologically and emotionally from traumatic events [ 4 , 5 ].

Cattaneo and Goodman [ 6 ] conducted a review to identify the predictors of repeat abuse associated with both victims and perpetrators and found that the study of victim-associated variables was virtually nonexistent in the literature. Most studies on revictimization have focused on analyzing those variables associated with recidivism in perpetrators and have tended to ignore victim-associated factors for fear of victim blaming [ 7 ]. However, a detailed analysis of the victim’s characteristics does not exonerate the aggressor from responsibility for the violent behavior to any degree. On the contrary, it has the potential to allow the development of effective strategies that do not consider women as mere passive objects exposed to aggression, but as active elements that can contribute to their own protection

To date, two systematic reviews have been published on the biopsychosocial characteristics of revictimized women. The oldest review was conducted by Kuijpers [ 5 ] and identified prospective studies available between 1997 and 2008 that had examined any of the variables proposed in the theoretical model proposed by Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner, and Feeny [ 8 ] on revictimization. It included fifteen studies that analyzed the characteristics of women who had suffered revictimization without differentiating whether this had occurred at the hands of the same or different partners. The second review was conducted by Orke et al. [ 7 ], which included seven retrospective and prospective studies published between 1946 and 2016 to analyze revictimization in IPVAW exclusively perpetrated by multiple partners. Although only one study is coincident in both papers, the main conclusion reached by both reviews is that empirical research on revictimization in IPVAW is scarce and with limited recent development. The scarcity of studies, in turn, means that neither of the two reviews were able to identify the risk or protective factors clearly linked to the risk of revictimization Nevertheless, some commonalities could be identified in the conclusions drawn by the reviews of Orke et al. [ 7 ] and Kuijpers et al. [ 5 ]:

  • There is no uniformity among the studies when it comes to defining the concept of revictimization.
  • The groups of variables most frequently analyzed in studies on revictimization in women who have suffered IPVAW are sociodemographic variables such as age, socioeconomic level (SES), educational level, or ethnicity; clinical variables such as depressive symptomatology, PTSD, and substance use; and variables associated with the characteristics of the violence such as the type of violence and its severity.
  • Substance use is the only variable that was considered in both reviews to be a consolidated risk factor for revictimization.
  • The existence of moderating variables is determinant in the results. On the one hand, emotional abuse and social support were associated with revictimization depending on the level of severity of the violence [ 5 ]. On the other hand, women who had been subjected to IPVAW by different partners differed significantly from those revictimized by the same partner in the likelihood of having suffered childhood trauma, in the attachment style manifested in adulthood, or in the degree of severity and frequency of previous violence [ 7 ].

1.2. Justification of the Need for a Meta-Analysis and Primary Objective

Firstly, to our knowledge, this would be the first meta-analysis on the characteristics of women who have suffered revictimization in IPVAW. Secondly, most of the studies included in the previous reviews were published more than ten years ago, which is considered sufficient time to establish the need to revisit the literature [ 9 ]. Thirdly, the two previous reviews included either exclusively prospective research [ 5 ] or focused on analyzing revictimization by multiple offenders [ 7 ], which has prevented an integrated analysis of the effect of the design used and the number of offenders involved. Furthermore, in the two previous reviews, contradictory results were obtained for some of the variables studied, such as social support, depression, and TETP symptoms. Finally, taking a broad biopsychosocial approach to revictimization as a reference, many variables of interest that may influence the risk of revictimization and that have not been previously considered remain to be analyzed.

Thus, in this work, we will carry out a meta-analysis that includes all the literature found to date on the revictimization in women who have suffered IPVAW, taking into account the possible differences found between prospective and retrospective evidence, as well as between the studies that distinguish between the number of aggressors. Through the quantitative analysis of the effect size on the previous evidence, which enables the performance of a meta-analysis, the aim of this work is to contribute to reducing the uncertainty existing in this field regarding the variables associated with revictimization.

1.3. Research Question

What psychosocial variables are characteristic of women who have suffered several episodes of IPVAW at the hands of the same or different partners?

Following the PICOS model (participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcome measures) of the PRISMA guide, the target participants will be women who have suffered revictimization in IPVAW. Regarding the interventions, the objective of this review is not to assess the efficacy of the interventions, but to find variables associated with the risk of revictimization. Comparisons will be made between women revictimized by one or different aggressors and women victimized on one occasion; the results of interest are those that refer to the relationship between the variables studied and revictimization. Regarding the design of the studies, non-manipulative studies with quantitative statistical analysis will be included. This study has not been registered on Prospero or any other alternative platform.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. inclusion criteria.

Inclusion criteria used in the screening phase taking into account title, abstract, and keywords:

  • Papers in whose title, abstract, or keywords the following terms appeared: revictimization in intimate partner/gender/domestic violence; chronicity in intimate partner/gender/domestic violence; history of domestic/intimate partner abuse; repeated abuse; repeated intimate partner/gender/domestic/intimate partner violence; and similar combinations;
  • Publications in English and Spanish;
  • Articles with quantitative statistical analysis: exclusively opinion articles, epidemiological articles, and articles with qualitative methodology were excluded because they did not use standardized effect size measures;
  • Non-manipulative studies: the objective of this work is to find victim-related variables associated with the risk of suffering repeated abuse. For this reason, any studies on the efficacy of interventions on the risk of revictimization were excluded. We have not included studies that have analyzed strategies used to confront a situation of IPVAW, i.e., recourse to shelters, restraining orders, or social support;
  • The studies should report results on a sample of women;
  • Revictimization in women aged 18 to 65 years;
  • Revictimization among heterosexual couples: sexual orientation is a factor frequently ignored in the studies of IPVAW or even given as a reason for exclusion. In addition, it has been shown that the characteristics of violence in non-heterosexual couples may be conditioned by other factors than those of heterosexual couples [ 10 ].

Inclusion criteria in the eligibility phase taking into account the entire full text:

  • Identical to the previous phase except with the difference that systematic reviews were excluded in this phase because they did not include quantitative analyses;
  • Analysis of results that included the variable revictimization.

2.2. Sources of Information and Selection of Studies

The databases used and the number of results obtained after searching each of them are specified below:

Firstly, on 7 February 2020, the PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE, and ERIC databases were searched. The same search strategy, specified in the following point, was used for all the databases, and a total of 2086 results were obtained. To narrow the number of studies, the following electronic filters were used based on the eligibility criteria presented: language (English or Spanish), gender (women and men or women), and age (18 to 65 years or 18 to 65 and other ages). No restrictions were placed on the year of publication or the type of paper. After using these filters, 1344 results were obtained, and when duplicates were eliminated, 1052 papers remained to be reviewed.

Secondly, on 21 February 2020, another search was performed, with the corresponding electronic strategy, in the Web of Science and SciELO databases. In this search, no electronic filter was used, except for language, and 259 results were obtained, of which 246 remained after the duplicates had been eliminated.

Thirdly, on 24 February 2020, three searches were performed in the OpenGrey database to access gray literature from different national bookstores on the European continent that were not controlled by commercial publishers. No electronic filters were used, and a total of 37 results without duplicates were obtained.

Therefore, a total of 1335 papers were reviewed by title, abstract, and keywords. The first 400 results were reviewed jointly by two members of the research team, obtaining a Cohen’s Kappa index of 97% coincidence. The studies that met the criteria were stored and managed in the RefWorks platform. After this first step, 119 papers were selected to be reviewed again with the full text and 18 new references were identified that could be included, so that a total of 137 full-text articles were finally reviewed ( Figure 1 ). Of these 137 papers, 14 could not be found and, finally, 35 papers, 17 retrospective and 18 prospective, were included because they met all the criteria. However, in the data extraction process, developed below, 13 more articles were excluded, resulting in a final number of 22 articles (11 retrospective and 11 prospective), 11 of which were coincident with those included in the reviews by Kuijpers et al. [ 5 ] and Orke et al. [ 7 ].

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is behavsci-14-00103-g001.jpg

Flow chart of selected items.

2.3. Search

The electronic search strategy used, based on that performed by Orke et al. [ 7 ] for the databases PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PsycBOOKS, MEDLINE, AND ERIC, was (intimate partner violence or partner abuse or domestic violence or domestic abuse or battered wom?n or spouse abuse or Family violence) AND ((chronic* (abuse* OR victim*)) OR (multiple (relation* OR victim* OR victim* OR partner* OR partner* OR abuse*)) OR (repeat* (relation* OR victim* OR victim* OR partner* OR partner* OR abuse*) OR (reoccur* (victim* OR partner* OR partner* OR abuse*)) or revictim* OR re-victim* OR polyvictim* OR Poly-victim OR Multivictim OR Muti-victim)).

The electronic search strategy used for the databases Web of Science and SciELO was based on the one used by Orke et al. [ 7 ] for the Web of Science database, which is not made explicit in the published report, but the lead author was contacted and provided it via e-mail: TI = (violence or abuse* or reabus* or revictim* or assault* or reassault* or batter*) AND TI = (intimate or partner* or marriage* or husband* or wife or wives or spous* or domestic*) AND TI = (recur* or reabus* or revictim* or repeat* or prior or past or future or later or prerelationship* or further or subsequent or subsequent or previous* or chronic* (abuse* or victim*) or persistent (abuse* or victim*) or poly-victim or multimvictim or multi-victim)

Regarding the electronic search strategy used in OpenGrey, several searches of greater and lesser complexity were performed, but only two of them yielded results: “battered women” and “intimate partner violence”.

2.4. Data Extraction Process and Data List

Taking as a reference the variables analyzed in the review by Orke et al. [ 7 ], for each study that met the eligibility criteria, the information extracted was classified into three types of categories: methodological, substantive, and extrinsic following the classificatory proposal of Sánchez and Botella [ 11 ].

  • Methodological variables: information was collected on the design (prospective/longitudinal or retrospective/cross-sectional), total duration of the study, sample size, participants lost, measurement instruments, and the statistical analysis performed.
  • Substantive variables: main objectives, conceptualization of key terms (revictimization, revictimization by the same or different partners), comparisons made, mean age and range, sample origin (shelters, police stations, general population), inclusion criteria, type of victimization measured (physical, psychological, or sexual), risk/protection factors analyzed, and main results obtained related to revictimization.
  • Extrinsic variables: country of origin of the sample, date of publication, and specialty and gender of the two main authors.

To perform the extraction, a base table was prepared in Excel with the variables listed and a coding manual was drafted in which the information required for each variable was specified. Information extraction was performed independently by two members of the research team for 50 of the 137 articles reviewed by full text, and an adequate Kappa agreement index of 87% was obtained [ 12 ]. The number of studies excluded in this process and the reasons for their exclusion are shown in Table 1 . The possible impact of the exclusion of these studies on the results of the analysis is analyzed in the results section. The quality of the studies was only taken into account as an exclusion criterion if there was insufficient information to calculate the effect sizes necessary for the analysis, since the number of studies included is low and the object of study is quite recent, so priority was given to having as much information as possible.

Detailed reasons for exclusion in the extraction process.

Note: a Some studies used the same sample, so the ones that evaluated and analyzed the data more reliably were chosen; b those studies that did not provide sufficient information to be able to calculate effect sizes; and c those studies that exclusively studied the relationship between revictimization and other variables that were only analyzed in those studies, so there was not enough information to include them in the meta-analysis (for more information, see Appendix B ).

The 106 effect sizes analyzed corresponded to 15 risk and protective factors associated with revictimization, 10 of which were common between retrospective and prospective studies (childhood abuse, PTSD symptomatology, drug use, frequency of previous physical violence, social support, age, educational level, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, and employability). The remaining 5 factors (alcohol consumption, leaving a partner after episodes of violence, marital status, severity of violence, and access to sources of help) were only analyzed for one of the two types of design because there were no more than two studies that provided effect sizes (ESs) for these variables. In addition, the following variables, personality alterations, anxious symptomatology, perpetration of violence by the victim, pregnancy in the previous year, cohabitation with the aggressor, self-esteem, attitudes, attributional style, attachment style, and reactions to violence, were not represented in the meta-analysis because they were not included in more than two studies in either of the two types of design. Access to the results obtained by the source studies for these variables that were not analyzed is provided in Appendix B .

2.5. Summary Measures and Statistical Analysis

RStudio version 1.4.1106 was used to perform the analyses. Most of the studies provided odds ratios (ORs) as a measure of effect size (ES), so in those cases in which a different index was provided, the relevant conversions were performed following the formulas suggested in Botella and Sánchez [ 12 ] to unify the type of statistic used for each variable. Once the ORs were calculated, the combined ESs were obtained for each variable that had at least three ESs found in different individual studies [ 13 ].

In those studies that included more than one measure for the same risk factor (e.g., giving differentiated data for physical and sexual revictimization), the mean of the ES provided was calculated to maintain the assumption of independence. This procedure was performed for six ESs linked to the variables of age, ethnicity, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, physical violence in the previous year, and childhood abuse.

We chose to use a random-effects analysis model because, unlike fixed-effects models, it takes into account the sampling variability of the studies, thus increasing the generability of the results obtained. The specific variance (tau2) was estimated using the restricted maximum likelihood method. The Q statistic was used to test the null hypothesis that interstudy heterogeneity was not significant, while the I2 statistic was used to estimate the percentage of ES variability that is not explained by random sampling error. Separate sensitivity analyses were performed for the retrospective and prospective studies in order to account for the effect of the reference group employed by each paper.

Finally, as the assessment of the threat of publication bias was challenged by the low number of studies, we used the Rosenthal’s fail-safe number. Other methods, such as Egger’s regression or trim and fill, are unstable with so few studies. With the same objective, Orwin’s method, which is a more sophisticated variant, was calculated since it provides the potential number of studies with a null effect (LogOR = 0) that would be necessary to obtain a combined ES set close to 0 (in this work, as usual, a value of LogOR = 0.0). To determine the number of studies beyond which an analysis can be considered robust with respect to the threat of publication bias, the Rosenthal rule was used, according to which it is estimated that five studies should be left out for one published study plus ten (5 k + 10). Therefore, if the safety numbers exceeded that criterion, robustness to bias was considered to be present [ 11 ]. The funnel plot was not used as a method for estimating publication bias due to the small number of studies contributed for each variable.

3.1. Retrospective Studies

Access to detailed information on this section is provided in Appendix B .

Characteristics of the variable revictimization: On the one hand, although most studies used the term revictimization, some of them did not use this term. Thus, in the case of Stein et al. [ 14 ], they used the word re-engagement, as Cattaneo and Goodman [ 6 ] had previously used. Frisch and MacKenzie [ 15 ] preferred to use the term chronic victimization, and Valentine, Stults, and Hasbrouck [ 16 ] opted for repeat abuse. Regardless of the term used, only one study provided an explicit definition of revictimization [ 14 ] (see Appendix B ). In addition, five investigations assessed the occurrence of revictimization over a one-year period, two papers assessed by taking into account the whole of adulthood, three studies assessed revictimization over a three- to four-year period, and one study did not specify the duration of the study.

On the other hand, all studies except Valentine et al. [ 16 ] specified the type of violence assessed. Two only analyzed episodes of physical violence, three prioritized the existence of physical and sexual violence, one the occurrence of physical and psychological violence, and the remaining three analyzed all three types of violence (physical, psychological, and sexual). In addition, five studies specified which events they considered to include each type of violence, taking as a reference one of the versions of the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2; [ 17 ]), while the remaining six identified these events from different sources or even defined, ad hoc, the behavior included in each dimension of violence.

With respect to the comparisons made, six studies examined the characteristics of the women revictimized by the same or different aggressors and used as a reference group the women who had suffered violence on a single occasion in the period covered by the study. By contrast, the remaining five studies compared revictimization by multiple aggressors with women victimized by a single perpetrator, without assessing whether or not the latter group had suffered repeated abuse. Finally, the percentages of revictimization in the studies ranged from 15% [ 18 ] to 70.5% [ 19 ]. This variability is probably due both to the origin of the different samples (some were clinical and others general population) and to the reference group used (some studies compared women who had already been victimized, while others compared women who had never suffered violence).

Sample of studies: The sample sizes ranged from 46 [ 15 ] to 2462 participants [ 20 ] ( Table 1 ). The mean age of research participants ranged from 29.7 [ 16 ] to 47.4 years [ 18 ]. Regarding the origin of the women participating in the studies, three papers recruited them from shelters for women victims of IPVAW, two from hospitals and clinics, and four from specialized help programs. Three studies obtained data from police records and reports and two from the general population (some studies had several sources for drawing their sample). Eighty-one point eight percent of the studies were conducted in the USA, and only the studies by Cho and Wike [ 20 ] and Houry et al. [ 21 ] explicitly excluded same-sex couples.

Methods: All the studies had a retrospective design and were published between 1991 [ 15 ] and 2020 [ 22 ]. Regarding the instruments used for the assessment of the different variables, six papers combined the use of ad hoc questionnaires with the application of validated scales [ 14 , 19 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 ], using the non-validated questionnaire mainly to collect sociodemographic data; while, for the rest of the variables, they used previously standardized scales. Only the research by Frisch and MacKenzie [ 15 ] made exclusive use of ad hoc questionnaires to assess all the variables included in the study. Finally, Cho and Wike [ 20 ], Person [ 18 ], and Valentiene et al. [ 16 ] employed surveys that were used in previous studies.

3.2. Prospective Studies

Characteristics of the variable revictimization: In this group of studies, there does not seem to be any uniformity regarding this variable either. Although most studies use the term revictimization again, none provide an explicit definition of it. The papers that do not use the term include similar synonyms such as ‘chronic abuse’, ‘reabuse’, or ‘recurrent IPV’. The follow-up periods were equally heterogeneous among the investigations analyzed. Cole et al. [ 26 ], Goodman et al. [ 27 ], and Krause, Kaltman, Goodman, and Dutton [ 28 ] established follow-up periods of a one year duration. Hirschel and Hutchison [ 29 ] and Kuijpers et al. [ 30 ] established follow-up periods of six months, Crandall et al. [ 31 ] and Sonis and Langer [ 32 ] of nine, Fleury et al. [ 33 ], Gao et al. [ 34 ], and Testa et al. [ 35 ] of two years, and Caetano, McGrath, Ramisetty-Mikler, and Field [ 36 ] of five years duration.

As for the type of violence evaluated, physical violence was once again the common denominator in all the studies. Two only analyzed episodes of physical violence, three evaluated physical and sexual violence, another three physical and psychological violence, and the remaining three analyzed all three types of violence. All the studies used some version of the Conflict Tactics Scale [ 17 ] to assess the violence suffered.

With respect to the comparisons made, there is also greater uniformity in this aspect in this group of studies. All the studies compared the characteristics of the women revictimized by the same or different aggressors during the follow-up period, marked by each study with those of women who did not suffer repeated abuse during follow-up, but who had suffered it previously. Only [ 36 ] used a different reference group when comparing women revictimized by the same or different aggressors with women who had never suffered IPVAW. Finally, the percentages of revictimization in the studies ranged from 23.7% [ 26 ] to 50.5% [ 32 ]. Although, as in the case of retrospective studies, the variability is high due to the samples studied and comparisons made, the estimated interval in prospective studies is smaller and, therefore, it could be suggested that studies with a prospective design estimate the incidence of revictimization with less error than retrospective studies.

Study sample: The sample sizes ranged from 135 [ 33 ] to 1392 participants [ 36 ] ( Table 2 ). The mean age of the research participants ranged from 24.06 [ 34 ] to 49.5 years [ 36 ]. Regarding the origin of the women participating in the studies, in four studies, they were recruited from shelters or public agencies for female victims of IPV, two from hospitals and health centers, three from police stations and police records, and two from the general population. Eight investigations were developed in the USA, one in New Zealand [ 34 ], one in the Netherlands [ 30 ], and one from the UK [ 26 ]. As in the retrospective studies, only the studies by Testa et al. [ 35 ] and Caetano et al. [ 36 ] explicitly excluded same-sex couples.

Results of prospective and retrospective studies without differentiating by comparisons.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; CI = confidence interval; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; and *** p < 0.001.

Methods: The papers were published between 2000 [ 33 ] and 2015 [ 34 ]. As in the group of retrospective studies, most used ad hoc questionnaires to collect sociodemographic data where these were taken into account in the analyses, while they used validated scales for the remaining variables. Only Cole et al. [ 26 ] used equally validated instruments to collect sociodemographic data.

In Appendix B   Table 1 for prospective studies and Table 2 for retrospective ones, specify the reference group used in each study for each of the risk and protective factors analyzed. This information is of particular relevance considering that the ES index used is the OR. Since OR is an effect size measure associated with dichotomous variables, it is necessary to clarify that we also used this measure for continuous variables, such as PTSD symptomatology or severity of violence, because most studies dichotomized these measures and provided OR to report the differences found. Thus, in the case of PTSD symptomatology, Cole et al. [ 26 ], Krause et al. [ 28 ], Kuijpers et al. [ 30 ], Sonis and Langer [ 32 ], and Person [ 18 ] dichotomized the variable according to whether or not women had any of the PTSD symptoms according to the DSM IV. For Stein et al. [ 14 ] and Coolidge and Anderson [ 24 ], in which a continuous measure of symptomatology was provided, the formula proposed in Botella and Sánchez [ 12 ] was used to transform effect size measures for continuous variables into ORs. In the case of severity of violence, the three studies that analyzed this variable [ 6 , 28 , 32 ] provided ORs in their studies for reporting the severity of violence by dichotomizing the score according to the recommendations of the measurement scales used in each case.

3.3. Summary of Results

3.3.1. retrospective studies.

Having suffered sexual abuse in childhood proved to be a risk factor significantly predictive of revictimization (OR = 2.65; p < 0.0001). The fact that the heterogeneity analysis of the four studies [ 14 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] that included this variable was not significant makes the combined ES obtained more robust (Q = 0.4256; p < 0.4256; I 2 = 0.00%). Belonging to a white ethnicity with respect to the rest of the ethnicities functioned as a protective factor (OR = 0.72; p < 0.01) based on the ES of seven studies included in the analysis [ 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 23 , 24 ]. The heterogeneity test was again not significant in the ethnicity variable, placing the significance level at 0.05 (Q = 11.7217; p < 0.0685; I 2 = 48.81%). The rest of the variables ( Table 2 ) obtained non-significant ESs, but all of them seemed to go in the expected direction according to the previous literature. That is, those variables hypothesized as risk factors obtained combined ORs > 1, whereas those traditionally considered protective factors were associated with combined ORs < 1.

Given that there were six studies that were omitted from the analysis due to the lack of independence in the samples, or because they did not provide sufficient data for the calculation of the combined ES being high (see Appendix B ), we checked whether these results could alter the analysis. Specifically, three of the excluded studies included PTSD symptomatology, three included depressive symptomatology, one included age, two included victim ethnicity, two included social support, and one included victim employability. In all the cases, the results were either not significant or in the expected direction. In no case was more than one ES from excluded studies non-significant for the same variable. In the case of PTSD symptomatology and depression, which are the variables for which the largest proportion of studies was left out, two of the three excluded studies in each case identified them as significant risk factors for revictimization.

No moderation analysis was performed due to the small number of studies found for each variable, so a sensitivity analysis was performed taking into account the comparisons made ( Table 3 ). Six studies [ 15 , 16 , 19 , 20 , 23 ] contrasted the characteristics of women revictimized by the same or different aggressors with those of women who had suffered violence on only one occasion in the period covered by the study and had sufficient data to perform the analyses on the variables of frequency of previous physical violence, age, employability, socioeconomic level, educational level, and ethnicity. After applying the random-effects model, all the variables analyzed maintained the directionality of the original analysis, and the variables white ethnicity vs. other ethnicities (k = 4; OR = 0.55, p < 0.0001) and high vs. low educational level (k = 3; OR = 0.34, p < 0.05) were found to be significant; both as protective factors for revictimization. The heterogeneity analysis was not significant in the case of ethnicity (Q = 2.5460, p < 0.4670; I 2 = 0.00%), but was significant in the case of educational level (Q = 54.0159, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 96.30%).

Sensitivity analysis of retrospective studies: women revictimized by the same or different aggressors vs. women who suffered violence on a single occasion.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; CI = confidence interval; * p < 0.05; and *** p < 0.001.

As for the remaining five studies that compared revictimization by multiple aggressors versus women victimized by a single perpetrator ( Table 4 ), analyses could be performed for the variables age, ethnicity, educational level, socioeconomic level, and childhood sexual abuse. In this case, childhood abuse remained a significant risk factor with respect to the first analysis (k = 3; OR = 2.34, p < 0.0001) with non-significant heterogeneity (Q = 1.0046, p < 0.6051; I = 0.00%). All other variables were not statistically significant. However, the combined ORs for the variables age (older vs. younger), educational level (high vs. low), and ethnicity (white vs. other) changed their directionality from suggesting a protective role in previous analyses (OR < 1) to indicating a role in favoring revictimization (OR > 1). Bearing in mind that this sensitivity analysis takes into account the number of perpetrators involved in revictimization, this change in direction with respect to previous analyses could indicate that the number of perpetrators involved is an important moderator to take into account when detecting the risk and protective factors for revictimization.

Sensitivity analysis of retrospective studies: revictimization by multiple perpetrators vs. women victimized by a single perpetrator.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; CI = confidence interval; and *** p < 0.001.

3.3.2. Prospective Studies

Significant risk factors were the variables PTSD symptomatology at T1 (k = 4; OR = 1.39, p < 0.05), drug use at T1 (k = 3; OR = 2.88, p < 0.01), severity of violence at T1 (k = 3; OR = 1.62; p < 0.05), alcohol consumption in the previous year (k = 5; OR = 1.74, p < 0.01), having suffered physical violence in the previous year (k = 4; OR = 3.90, p < 0.0001), and having suffered abuse in childhood (k = 3; OR = 2.65; p < 0.001). The variables age (k = 5; OR = 0.88, p < 0.05) and ethnicity (k = 5; OR = 0.65, p < 0.05) were significant protective factors. Heterogeneity analysis was highly significant for all factors except for the variables ethnicity (Q = 6.6612, p < 0.1549; I 2 = 39.95%), physical violence in the previous year (Q = 0.2626, p < 0.9669; I 2 = 0.00%), and childhood abuse (Q = 2.8021, p < 0.2463; I 2 = 28.62%). All the variables marked a directionality of ORs consistent with the previous literature and with the results obtained in retrospective studies.

As with the group of retrospective studies, we tested whether the seven prospective studies, that were excluded from the extraction due to the lack of independence in the samples or insufficient information for the calculation of pooled ESs, could have altered the results. Three papers included PTSD symptomatology at T1, one had access to sources of help, one had childhood abuse, and one had social support at T1. All the results obtained went in the expected direction for the variables of interest. In fact, if included, they would have given more weight to the results of the meta-analysis because having access to sources of help and social support were both significant protective factors in their respective studies, in the same way that PTSD symptomatology at T1 and suffering childhood abuse functioned as significant risk factors.

A sensitivity analysis was performed taking into account the comparisons made in the studies, which consisted of repeating the analyses excluding the study by Caetano et al. [ 36 ] because it was the only study that had used a different reference group to the rest of the studies ( Table 5 ). This analysis found that being of white ethnicity relative to other ethnicities, being employed relative to not employed, being older relative to younger, and having a higher socioeconomic status functioned as significant protective factors for revictimization, while alcohol consumption was associated with a higher risk of revictimization. The heterogeneity analysis was significant in both cases, and the directionality of the results was maintained in all the variables with respect to the original analysis.

Prospective sensitivity analysis: elimination of Caetano et al. [ 35 ] analysis.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; CI = confidence interval; and * p < 0.5.

3.4. Publication Bias

For those variables that were significant in the initial analysis or in the sensitivity analysis, their robustness to publication bias was evaluated by calculating their safety numbers using Rosenthal’s and Orwin’s methods ( Table 6 and Table 7 ).

Analysis of safety numbers from retrospective studies.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; a   Table 5 sensitivity analysis sexual abuse data; b   Table 4 sensitivity analysis study level data; and c   Table 4 sensitivity analysis study level data.

Analysis of safety numbers from prospective studies.

Note: k = number of studies included in the analysis; a alcohol consumption data from sensitivity analysis; and b age data from sensitivity analysis.

The analyses show that, in the retrospective studies, all the variables included are supported by at least one of the two methods, with the exception of the variable ethnicity, which is not supported by either. The factors childhood sexual abuse and educational level (when comparing revictimization by multiple perpetrators with women victimized by a single perpetrator) were the variables with the greatest robustness to publication bias by exceeding the Rosenthal criterion (5 k + 10) with both methods.

As for the prospective studies, age was the only variable that did not exceed the criterion value with either method. This occurred only when the data from the sensitivity analysis were subjected to the risk of bias assessment. However, when the entire age variable was taken, not much robustness was observed either because according to Orwin’s method, only seven of the studies with an unpublished mean effect size of zero would be necessary to obtain a pooled ES equal to 0.05 when combined. A similar example occurred with the ethnicity variable, only, in this case, it was Rosenthal’s method that estimated a safety number of only nine investigations. The remainder of the variables had clearer results, obtaining support from at least one of the methods. In the case of drug use, physical violence at T1, and severity, both Rosenthal’s and Orwin’s procedures were safe from the effect of publication bias.

4. Discussion

Revictimization in IPVAW is a social problem that affects between 15% and 70% of women with previous experiences of intimate partner violence and entails serious emotional, physical, and sexual sequelae. The study of revictimization from the perspective of the biopsychosocial characteristics of the women who suffer it is recent and scarce. This meta-analysis is, to our knowledge, the first review with objective and quantitative results on the subject, and 22 studies have been analyzed, differentiated by the type of design used.

Several noteworthy conclusions can be drawn. Firstly, having suffered abuse in childhood was significantly associated with revictimization in both prospective and retrospective studies. In addition, the combined ES remained significant when analyzing those studies that analyzed revictimization by multiple aggressors, as shown by the sensitivity analysis. In other words, the effect found for childhood abuse is cross-sectional across the design used and the comparisons made, which of all the variables analyzed, was only observed in this variable. If we add to this transversality the strong critical levels obtained in the three analyses performed with the variable, the absence of significance in the heterogeneity test, and the low probability of publication bias, we can conclude that having experienced physical or sexual abuse, or both, in childhood is the most consolidated risk factor when predicting revictimization in IPVAW. This result mirrors the large number of studies that have identified a link between having experienced childhood abuse and the risk of IPVAW revictimization in adulthood [ 7 , 14 , 37 ]. Such a relationship between childhood trauma and IPVAW revictimization follows a dose-response pattern. Thus, individuals who accumulate a greater number and variety of childhood traumatic experiences have greater psychological vulnerability to revictimization [ 38 , 39 ]. According to [ 26 ], this effect of cumulative trauma on the risk of revictimization is likely due to the impact that previous abuse has on coping with trauma-associated symptoms in adulthood. Indeed, the evidence linking childhood adversity to the onset of mental health problems in adulthood is robust and equally linked to a dose-response effect [ 40 ].

Secondly, the variable ethnicity, understood as belonging to a white ethnic group and taking the rest of the ethnic groups as a reference, constitutes a protective factor against revictimization in both prospective and retrospective studies. However, in this case, the results do not hold in the sensitivity analyses by comparisons. Specifically, it is observed that when distinguishing between revictimized women and women victimized on one occasion, the risk is clearly lower in those belonging to white ethnicity; but, when comparing women revictimized by multiple aggressors with women victimized by one aggressor, the variable ceases to be significant. This could suggest that the effect of ethnicity could vary according to the moderator number of aggressors involved in the revictimization. However, the result for this variable is not as robust as that obtained for childhood abuse, since, although heterogeneity is low and consistency between designs is maintained, the critical levels associated with the combined ESs obtained are not as powerful, and it is one of the variables with the greatest risk of publication bias. Therefore, it is risky to venture an explanation for the results found.

Thirdly, the remainder of the significant variables found have functioned as risk or protective factors exclusively for a specific type of design, but not for the other. Specifically, PTSD symptomatology in T1, alcohol abuse in T1, substance use in T1, having suffered physical violence in T1, severity of violence in T1, and age were significant risk factors only in the prospective studies. Older age also functioned as a protective factor in the prospective group, while having a higher level of education is found to be a protective factor in the retrospective studies. However, it is worth mentioning that the severity variable has been significant only in prospective studies because in the retrospective studies there were not enough ESs to perform the analysis. This result coincides with the prospective evidence prior to 2008 [ 5 ].

From these results, it can be deduced that the group of prospective studies has yielded a considerably greater number of significant variables associated with revictimization than the group of retrospective studies. Despite this, the consistency in the directionality of the results between the two designs is constant for all variables. Thus, those variables that appear to be significant protective factors in the prospective study group, although not appearing as such in the retrospective studies, obtained combined ORs of less than one, and vice versa in the case of the risk factors. In other words, in the study of revictimization in IPVAW, retrospective evidence gives rise to results largely similar to those provided in prospective studies, in addition to avoiding the overestimation of ESs. All this would imply being able to make use of this research design, with the savings in economic and human resources that this implies, with respect to prospective designs and without losing the quality of the evidence obtained.

Fourthly, the heterogeneity existing in this area of study in both conceptual and methodological aspects is striking. Thus, there is no consensus among the studies on such basic aspects as the term used to refer to revictimization, since, although most use the term ‘revictimization’, others use alternative synonyms such as ‘reabuse’ or ‘re-engagement’. Nor is there any uniformity in defining it. Indeed, it is paradoxical that the literature on revictimization seems to take the definition of the term for granted when only one of the twenty-two studies included gave an explicit definition of revictimization [ 14 ]. Neither is there any uniformity in setting the length of the temporal window established to assess the occurrence of revictimization, which ranged from one year in duration to an entire lifespan. The same problem occurs with respect to the types of violence likely to lead to repeated abuse, except in the case of physical violence, which is always assessed, as well as in relation to the established reference groups, as reflected by the lack of agreement when differentiating between revictimization by multiple and single aggressors. It seems that most articles on the topic do not provide an explicit definition of revictimization, but that it depends on the characteristics of the study, the selection and recruitment of the sample, and the instruments used to detect it. This fact was already pointed out by Cattaneo and Goodman [ 6 ], and it does not seem to have changed much over the years.

This lack of systematicity and generalized heterogeneity hinders the analysis, the comparability, and the interpretation of the results obtained. After conducting this meta-analysis, the need to establish a certain degree of research uniformity is underscored, since it is particularly complicated to study an area in which there is no agreed definition for central concepts such as revictimization itself [ 5 , 6 ].

To the problem of the heterogeneity in the literature on revictimization must be added the scarcity of studies on revictimization [ 5 , 7 ]. The small number of studies complicates drawing solid conclusions on the relationships between the different variables analyzed and revictimization. In addition, there is a lack of quality in the source articles when reporting the results. This has meant that in this meta-analysis, 26.7% of the 30 articles that could have been included were excluded from the already short list of identified papers. The scarcity of research combined with low-quality reports, and heterogeneity, are fundamental aspects, which explain why there are certain variables whose relationship with revictimization in IPVAW is not clear, despite being recurrently studied in the literature in this field. This is the case of PTSD symptomatology or substance use, which despite functioning as risk factors predictive of revictimization [ 5 , 7 ], whose results are not always statistically significant.

Within the framework of this scarcity, it has been possible to corroborate that some types of factors are much more represented than others. As mentioned above, the variables referring to clinical symptomatology, as well as sociodemographic variables, are usually included in most studies on revictimization. By contrast, the under-representation of other variables that presumably should be part of these studies is striking. Therefore, it is surprising that only one study includes the analysis of the classical psychological variables such as self-esteem, assertiveness, or locus of control, and this research was carried out thirty years ago [ 15 ]. Similarly, it is noteworthy that there is a tendency in this field to ignore the contextual variables related to the specific situation in which the violence occurs, that is, both the antecedents prior to the occurrence of the aggression and the immediate reactions. These components are fundamental to explaining and predicting behavior, as reflected in the theoretical models on revictimization in IPVAW proposed by Foa et al. [ 8 ] or Bell and Naugle [ 40 ]. Similarly, the few empirical studies that analyze the role of immediate reactions in situations of IPVAW [ 6 ] have found that the use of confrontational coping strategies by the victim is the most important risk factor for revictimization once the effect of the other risk factors has been controlled for. In this meta-analysis, only the variable leaving the partner can be included in the study of immediate reactions to violence. However, it was only evaluated in three prospective studies, which has prevented us from drawing any significant conclusions in its role in revictimization.

Limitations

The sample of studies analyzed is quantitatively and qualitatively small. There is insufficient evidence for any of the factors analyzed to draw solid conclusions. Moreover, for some of the factors, such as antecedents and consequences of the situation of violence, the scarcity of identified studies that include them is a reflection of the limited importance given to them in this field of study, rather than the size of the sample analyzed. Similarly, the paucity of studies has prevented us from conducting moderation analyses based on sufficiently large and balanced categories. Although sensitivity analyses have attempted to cover part of this shortcoming by allowing differentiation according to the comparisons made, it has not been possible to take into account the effect of aspects of interest such as the type of violence assessed, the use of ES corrected, or not, in the source studies, the use of one type of instrument or another, or the severity of the violence experienced [ 5 ]. Also in relation to the low number of studies that included each variable considered in the meta-analysis, it was not possible to analyze publication bias using a funnel plot or evaluate the quality of the studies to be used as an exclusion criterion since priority was given to having more data for the analyses.

Finally, it is necessary to mention the potential generability of the results found. While it is true that the samples of the source studies addressed diversity in issues, such as the ethnicity of the participants, they did not do so in other aspects such as their sexual orientation. This factor was generally ignored in the results or even given as a reason for exclusion. Furthermore, although no geographic restrictions were used in the search conducted, 73% of the studies were carried out in the USA and the rest in Europe or New Zealand, which shows a Western-centric bias from which this field of study does not escape either. In addition, the heterogeneity of the data has meant that the effect of belonging to a white ethnic group has had to be compared with respect to the rest of the ethnic groups, without differentiating between them. Therefore, the generability of considering belonging to a white ethnic group, with respect to other ethnic groups, as the most powerful protective factor against revictimization could be compromised, bearing in mind that the research has been carried out in countries where it is precisely white people who are in their country of origin, with all the socioeconomic facilities that this implies.

5. Conclusions, Implications of the Evidence Found, and Future Lines of Research

Research on women who have experienced revictimization in IPVAW allows for some specific findings on particular predictors such as the effect of childhood abuse or ethnicity. However, the paucity and heterogeneity of the studies found preclude more solid conclusions. Carrying out this meta-analysis allows us to identify weaknesses in this field of study and to propose solutions to correct them. Table 8 proposes a list of recommendations for future research in this field of study, some of which coincide with previous proposals [ 5 , 6 ]. To avoid detracting from the clarity of the list, some of the proposed points are developed here in greater detail.

Main findings of the analysis and implications for future research.

Firstly, in order to reduce the heterogeneity of central terms and definitions such as the term ‘revictimization’, it is proposed to put forward a broad definition that is as inclusive as possible, but that also manages to delimit the different circumstances in which revictimization is present [ 6 ]. It is essential that the definition of revictimization makes reference to the importance of differentiating between revictimization by a single and multiple aggressors, as well as including the different types of violence in which revictimization can occur. Therefore, the use of the CTS-2 [ 17 ] could facilitate this task, in addition to that referred to the unification of measurement instruments, by establishing specific types of violence, their definitions, and the period of time during which their occurrence is taken into account. Based on this meta-analysis, the following definition of revictimization is proposed with the aim of favoring both the unification of terms and the comparability of results: “Revictimization in the context of violence against women refers to a situation in which a victim of IPV experiences new suffering, trauma or harm as a result of any new emotional, physical or sexual abuse by the same or a different perpetrator.”

Secondly, with regard to the construction of theoretical models that synthesize and give coherence to the evidence found to date, previous proposals such as those of Foa et al. [ 8 ] or Bell and Naugle [ 41 ] can serve as a valuable guide. Although they require revision considering their age, they have made it possible to build bridges between the classic theoretical models in the study of violence against women and to solve some of the existing gaps.

Finally, there is a robust conclusion that can be drawn from the results obtained, which is that having suffered childhood trauma increases the risk of suffering revictimization in IPVAW, probably with a dose-response effect [ 38 ]. This result has implications, in the first place, in the field of intervention, since although it is not possible to intervene on past experiences of childhood trauma, it is possible to stress the need to include in IPVAW intervention programs, training in therapeutic skills to help process childhood trauma and better understand its consequences, since IPVAW programs rarely include specialized personnel. Furthermore, it has been hypothesized and contrasted that one of the main mechanisms mediating between childhood traumatic experiences and vulnerability to revictimization is psychological distress, particularly trauma-related symptoms (PTSD symptoms or dissociative symptoms) [ 26 , 42 ], so that intervening in PTSD symptomatology could also have an impact on the psychological consequences of having suffered childhood trauma. This meta-analysis has also confirmed a fairly clear tendency for PTSD symptoms to predict revictimization. Thus, there is a clear need for future research on the relationship between childhood trauma, PTSD symptomatology, and risk of revictimization to improve intervention programs. Second, the area of childhood abuse prevention also becomes imperative. There is robust evidence that protecting minors from any type of domestic violence is crucial to break the cycle of abuse in childhood and revictimization in adulthood [ 42 ]. Training parents to help the child to cope adaptively can be fundamental, always being careful not to blame the victims. Thus, these findings should be approached as an opportunity to praise and boost IPVAW programs that offer services to help minors.

Therefore, although the literature on revictimization in intimate partner violence is still scarce, heterogeneous, and imprecise, this first meta-analysis about the evidence already found allows us to establish clear lines of action for future research in a field that is so relevant in today’s society.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Department of State Security of the Spanish Ministry of the Interior for their work in favor of women victims of intimate partner violence and their support in the development of this research project. We would also like to thank the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid for funding the predoctoral contract awarded to Bellot, A, for training research personnel (FPI-UAM) in the 2020 call.

Appendix A.1. Additional Information on Excluded Studies

This link leads to an Excel table listing all the studies reviewed by full text, both those included and those excluded in the analysis, specifying the reasons for exclusion for each of them: “ https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xWL_a2CDYmG_DKhgGTohINAzZ5yrLUb7/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116270249452788078464&rtpof=true&sd=true ”, accessed on 29th January 2024.

Appendix A.2. RStudio Syntax Used to Conduct the Analysis

This link leads to the R code that can be used to calculate the combined effect size and forest plot of any created variable:

“ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVrevfYXLazGEsfFwWuMjr6iHWpaCLjP/view?usp=drive_link ”, accessed on 29th January 2024.

Detailed information on the source studies included in the analysis can be found at the following link: “ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_u0PnZZOFs7YQugWNEDq6KwFErEJvEvS/view?usp=sharing ”, accessed on 29th January 2024.

Funding Statement

This work was made possible by a research grant from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities (PGC2018-096130-B-100) and because of lead author Ana Bellot’s pre-doctoral contract provided by the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.M. and M.J.M.-R.; methodology, A.B. and J.B.; software, A.B. and J.B.; validation, M.J.M.-R. and I.M.; formal analysis, A.B. and J.B.; investigation, A.B. and M.J.M.-R.; resources, M.J.M.-R.; data curation, A.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B. and I.M.; writing—review and editing, A.B., I.M. and J.B.; visualization, A.B.; supervision, I.M. and J.B.; project administration, M.J.M.-R.; funding acquisition, M.J.M.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (CEI-941720).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

IMAGES

  1. (PDF) Public Justification of Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of

    literature review on intimate partner violence

  2. (PDF) Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Following Status

    literature review on intimate partner violence

  3. (PDF) The State of Intimate Partner Violence Intervention: Progress and

    literature review on intimate partner violence

  4. (PDF) It’s time to start asking all patients about intimate partner

    literature review on intimate partner violence

  5. (PDF) Intimate Partner Violence: A Literature Review

    literature review on intimate partner violence

  6. Intimate Partner Violence: Assessment, Treatment and Prevention

    literature review on intimate partner violence

COMMENTS

  1. A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to violence between two people involved in an intimate relationship, and it exists in all countries, cultures and societies (Ellsberg et al., 2014). ... The review of the existing literature identifies several areas for further research. First, although the literature above offers preliminary support for ...

  2. Intimate Partner Violence: A Literature Review

    Methods A literature search was conducted in English and Spanish in EBSCO and Scopus and included the keywords "Intimate, Partner, Violence, IPV.". The articles included in this review cover ...

  3. A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused

    A systematic scoping review of the literature was done adhering to PRISMA guidelines. The search covered a period of 1980 to 2017 with no language restrictions across the following databases, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PROQUEST, and Cochrane. ... A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions: state of the field and ...

  4. Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Literature Review

    Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Literature Review According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2017), one in three women throughout the world will experience physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by a non-partner. In Minnesota last year, at least 19 women were murdered by a

  5. A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications

    Intimate partner violence is an important issue and attempts to distinguish typologies of intimate partner violence are necessary to understand the complexities of intimate partner violence, its various causes, correlates, and consequences. Over the last two decades, much research was aimed at classifying types of violence depending on the similarities and differences in patterns of violence.

  6. A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence

    While the CPS definition reflects domestic violence, the current review will use the term intimate partner violence (IPV) as it is the most commonly used within the literature, and the focus here will be on partner violence, rather than violence within the wider family.

  7. A literature review of intimate partner violence and its

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) refers to violence between two people involved in an intimate relationship, and it exists in all countries, cultures and societies (Ellsberg et al., 2014). The World Health Organization (2010) defines IPV as "behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including ...

  8. Intimate Partner Violence: A Bibliometric Review of Literature

    Intimate partner violence and women's physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence: An observational study. 891: ... The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. 561: 51.00: Child Abuse & Neglect/2.569: 2008: Ireland: 17:

  9. Intimate Partner Violence

    Intimate Partner Violence Violence and coercion by an intimate partner is a public health problem that disproportionately affects women and some minority populations. ... a review of the ...

  10. Interventions to Prevent Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a global health and human rights problem. This systematic review assesses the effects of preventive interventions on the occurrence of IPV experience or perpetration. Twenty-six studies published between January 1, 2008 and March 31, 2022 were included, contributing 91 effect sizes.

  11. A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions ...

    Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a key public health issue, with a myriad of physical, sexual and emotional consequences for the survivors of violence. Social support has been found to be an important factor in mitigating and moderating the consequences of IPV and improving health outcomes. This study's objective was to identify and assess network oriented and support mediated ...

  12. An integrative literature review on intimate partner violence against

    The criteria for selecting the papers included in the literature review were (1) studies of Korean women, (2) studies that included the keyword "intimate partner violence," (3) research papers published in Korean and international journals after peer review, and (4) studies in English or Korean. The criteria for exclusion from the ...

  13. Intimate Partner Violence: A Bibliometric Review of Literature

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide public health problem. Here, a bibliometric analysis is performed to evaluate the publications in the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) field from 2000 to 2019 based on the Science Citation Index (SCI) Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI …

  14. What About the Men? A Critical Review of Men's Experiences of Intimate

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a health problem affecting people of all genders and other social locations. ... In undertaking this critical literature review of the current state of knowledge of men's experiences of IPV, the authors were interested in reviewing a broad scope of literature and evidence sources, and therefore, we did not ...

  15. Intimate Partner Violence: A Literature Review

    1. INTRODUCTION. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most prevalent type of violence against women worldwide. It is defined as a "behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviors" [ 1 ].

  16. Intimate Partner Violence: A Bibliometric Review of Literature

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a worldwide public health problem. Here, a bibliometric analysis is performed to evaluate the publications in the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) field from 2000 to 2019 based on the Science Citation Index (SCI) Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) databases. This work presents a detailed overview of IPV from aspects of types of articles ...

  17. The psychological subtype of intimate partner violence and its effect

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global health problem characterized as any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm [].At present, it is well-documented that IPV can cause extensive mental health consequences among its victims [2,3,4,5].IPV can be characterized as an interpersonal trauma, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder ...

  18. Intimate Partner Violence: A Literature Review

    Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is the most prevalent type of violence against women worldwide. It is defined as a "behavior by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviors" [1]. The United Nations has defined violence against women as "any act of gender ...

  19. PDF The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017

    Black MC. Intimate partner violence and adverse health consequences: implications for clinicians. Am J Lifestyle Med 2011;5(5):428-39. ... women: a review of the literature. Int J Family Med 2013;1-15. 7. eiding MJ, Black MC, Ryan GW. Chronic disease and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner Br

  20. A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Violence

    Abstract. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence was conducted. Inclusion criteria included publication in a peer-reviewed journal, a representative community sample or a clinical sample with a control-group comparison, a response rate of at least 50%, use of a physical or sexual violence outcome measure, and control ...

  21. A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence

    The majority of research on intimate partner violence (IPV) has addressed male-to-female violence, although a small but growing body of literature has developed that explores males victimized by … Expand

  22. Homicides and Intimate Partner Violence: A Literature Review

    The purpose of this article is to examine the literature on intimate partner homicides (IPH). The review begins by describing the factors, magnitude, and consequences associated with IPH, focusing on studies from the United States.

  23. [PDF] A literature review of intimate partner violence and its

    A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications @article{Ali2016ALR, title={A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications}, author={Parveen Azam Ali and Katie Dhingra and Julie McGarry}, journal={Aggression and Violent Behavior}, year={2016}, volume={31}, pages={16-25}, url={https://api ...

  24. Methods and tools to screen and assess risks for intimate partner

    The purpose of this review is to collate literature on approaches to screening women from culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) backgrounds for experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) and assessing risks, with a view to identifying examples of best practice and research gaps. Methods. A scoping review methodology was adopted.

  25. Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care: Orienting Intimate Partner Violence

    Purposeof Review. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex traumatic experience that often co-occurs, or is causally linked, with other forms of structural violence and oppression. ... Gender and types of intimate partner violence: a response to an anti-feminist literature review. Aggress Violent Behav. 2011; 16 (4):289-296. doi: 10.1016 ...

  26. Predicting Intimate Partner Violence

    The consequences of intimate partner violence (IPV) are dire. A recent review by Sarah White of the University of London and colleagues (2023) looked at 201 studies involving 250,599 women ...

  27. Relationship risk factors for intimate partner violence among sexual

    Intimate partner violence (IPV) is alarmingly prevalent among sexual and gender minority youth assigned female at birth (SGM‐AFAB), making it important to identify risk factors that can be targeted in prevention efforts for this population. Although several relationship‐level risk factors for IPV have been identified in different‐sex couples, research on SGM‐AFAB is sparse and ...

  28. Experiences of childhood, intimate partner, non-partner, and ...

    Experiences of childhood, intimate partner, non-partner, and hate crime-related violence among a sample of people living with HIV in the epicenter of the U.S. HIV epidemic Front Public Health . 2024 Feb 7:12:1331855. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1331855.

  29. Factors Associated with Revictimization in Intimate Partner Violence: A

    1.1. Violence against Women and Revictimization. Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is a complex phenomenon that has become a major social, global, and public health problem that chronically affects women's physical and mental health [].It is a commonly recurrent problem and tends to escalate both in the levels of frequency and severity as the duration of the intimate partner ...