How many Slovenian family practice attendees are victims of intimate partner violence? A re-evaluation cross-sectional study report

BMC Public Health

Nena Kopcavar Gucek¹  Igor Svab¹  Polona Selic¹ 

[1] Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, Poljanski nasip 58, Ljubljana, Slovenia

关键词: Risk factors;    Primary care;    Psychological violence;    Physical violence;    Violence prevalence;    Intimate partner violence;   

Others  :  1161979
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-703

 received in 2013-06-18, accepted in 2013-07-30,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) can be considered a leading public health problem affecting approximately 50% of women during the course of their lifetimes. This study was carried out with the aim of re-testing the prevalence data and providing sufficient grounds for decision-makers in family medicine in Slovenia to adopt much-needed protocols for IPV management in the field.

Methods

In January 2012, every tenth general practitioner (GP) registered in Slovenia, of a total of 958, was invited to participate in a multi-centre cross-sectional study, and 9.4% of them, working in 90 family practices, agreed to participate. From February 1 to March 1, 2012, they asked every fifth family practice attendee aged 18 years and above, regardless of gender, to participate in the study. The short version of Domestic Violence Exposure Questionnaire was administered to 2572 patients.

Results

In the sample, there were more women (62.9% (n = 1617)). The average age of all the participants was 49.0 ± 16.1 years. Of 2572 participants (95.3% response rate), 17.1% people had been exposed to either emotional or both physical and emotional abuse. The prevalence of psychological violence was 10.3%, and that of concurrent physical and psychological abuse 6.8%, with all the patients exposed to physical IPV disclosing concurrent psychological violence. Female gender and previous formal divorce were risk factors identified in all three multivariate logistic regression models. The odds of concurrent physical and psychological and either type of IPV exposure in patients were lessened by an age of 65 years or above. The odds for either type of IPV were also lower in single people, while in concurrent physical and psychological IPV exposure, living in urban settings acted as a protective factor.

Conclusions

In Slovenian family practice attendees, an IPV exposure prevalence of approximately 17% should be considered a valid estimation.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Selic et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McCloskey LA, Williams CM, Lichter E, Gerber M, Ganz ML, Sege R: Abused women disclose partner interference with health care: an unrecognized form of battering. J Gen Intern Med 2007, 22:1067-1072.
• [2]Stinson CK, Robinson R: Intimate partner violence: continuing education for registered nurses. J Contin Educ Nurs 2006, 37:58-62.
• [3]Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HA, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH: WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet 2006, 368:1260-1269.
• [4]Clark JP, Du Mont J: Intimate partner violence and health: a critique of Canadian prevalence studies. Can J Public Health 2003, 94:52-58.
• [5]Cox J, Bota G, Carter M, Bretzlaff-Michaud J, Sahai V, Rowe B: Domestic violence. Can Fam Physician 2004, 50:90-97.
• [6]McCauley J, Kern DE, Kolodner K, Dill L, Schroeder AF, DeChant HK, Ryden J, Bass EB, Derogatis LR: The “battering syndrome”: prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Ann Intern Med 1995, 123:737-746.
• [7]WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women: Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2005.
• [8]Jewkes R: Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet 2002, 359:1423-1429.
• [9]Ellsberg M, Pena R, Herrera A, Liljestrand J, Winkvist A: Candies in hell: women’s experiences of violence in Nicaragua. Soc Sci Med 2000, 51:1595-1610.
• [10]Campbell J, Jones AS, Dienemann J, Kub J, Schollenberger J, O’Campo P, Gielen AC, Wynne C: Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Arch Intern Med 2002, 162:1157-1163.
• [11]Bonomi AE, Thompson RS, Anderson M, Reid RJ, Carrell D, Dimer JA, Rivara FP: Intimate partner violence and women’s physical, mental, and social functioning. Am J Prev Med 2006, 30:458-466.
• [12]Selic P, Pesjak K, Kersnik J: The prevalence of exposure to domestic violence and the factors associated with co-occurrence of psychological and physical violence exposure: a sample from primary care patients. BMC Publ Health 2011, 11:621. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women 2012. [Updated Thursday, November 22, 2012, cited 20 April 2013]. Available from: http://www.stat.si/eng/novica_prikazi.aspx?id=5148 webcite
• [14]Selic P, Pesjak K, Kopcavar-Gucek N, Kersnik J: Factors that increase likelihood of violence in the family and seeking for help at family practitioner. Pilot study about violence in the family. (English summary). Zdrav Vestn 2008, 77:505-510.
• [15]Selic P, Kopcavar-Gucek N, Kersnik J: Screening for Domestic Violence: Domestic Violence Victims and their Characteristics. (English summary). Rev Krim Kriminol 2008, 59:39-54.
• [16]Kopcavar Gucek N, Svab I, Selic P: The prevalence of domestic violence in primary care patients in Slovenia in a five-year period (2005–2009). Croat Med J 2011, 52:728-734.
• [17]Svab I, Petek Ster M, Kersnik J, Zivcec Kalan G, Car J: A cross sectional study of performance of Slovene general practitioners (English summary). Zdrav Var 2005, 44:183-192.
• [18]Cooper C, Selwood A, Livingston G: The prevalence of elder abuse and neglect: a systematic review. Age Ageing 2008, 37:151-160.
• [19]Biggs S, Manthorpe J, Tinker A, Doyle M, Erens B: Mistreatment of older people in the United Kingdom: findings from the First National Prevalence Study. J Elder Abuse Negl 2009, 21:1-14.
• [20]Lowenstein A, Eisikovits Z, Band-Winterstein T, Enosh G: Is elder abuse and neglect a social phenomenon? Data from the First National Prevalence Survey in Israel. J Elder Abuse Negl 2009, 21:253-277.
• [21]Acierno R, Hernandez MA, Amstadter AB, Resnick HS, Steve K, Muzzy W, Kilpatrick DG: Prevalence and correlates of emotional, physical, sexual, and financial abuse and potential abuse in the United States: the National Elder Mistreatment Study. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:292-297.
• [22]Yaffe MJ, Weiss D, Wolfson C, Lithwick M: Detection and prevalence of abuse of older males: perspectives from family practice. J Elder Abuse Negl 2007, 19:47-60.
• [23]Klemenc-Ketiš Z, Kersnik J: Prevalence of ethical dilemmas in Slovenian family practice. Acta medico-biotechnica 2009, 2:45-54.
• [24]Klemenc-Ketis Z, Kersnik J, Ojstersek J: Perceived difficulties in managing ethical problems in family practice in Slovenia: cross-sectional study. Croat Med J 2008, 49:799-806.
• [25]Feder G, Ramsay J, Dunne D, Rose M, Arsene C, Norman R, Kuntze S, Spencer A, Bacchus L, Hague G, Warburton A, Taket A: How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different health-care settings meet criteria for a screening programme? Systematic reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria. Health Technol Assess 2009, 13:iii-iv. xi-xiii, 1–113, 137–347