Cited by 759Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceCrime Patterns and InterventionsElder Abuse and Neglect

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 46 of the 46 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 17 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic—evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Piquero, Alex R., Jennings, Wesley G., Jemison, Erin, Kaukinen, Catherine, Knaul, Felicia Marie·2021·Journal of Criminal Justice

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this review was to estimate the effect of COVID-19-related restrictions (i.e., stay at home orders, lockdown orders) on reported incidents of domestic violence. Methods A systematic review of articles was conducted in various databases and a meta-analysis was also performed. The search was carried out based on conventional scientific standards that are outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and studies needed to meet certain criteria. Results Analyses were conducted with a random effects restricted maximum likelihood model. Eighteen empirical studies (and 37 estimates) that met the general inclusion criteria were used. Results showed that most study estimates were indicative of an increase in domestic violence post-lockdowns. The overall mean effect size was 0.66 (CI: 0.08–1.24). The effects were stronger when only US studies were considered. Conclusion Incidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders, a finding that is based on several studies from different cities, states, and several countries around the world.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101806

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

2 tests recomputed · 0 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Verification

Claims the paper makes

15 Not checked yet · 15 Own result · 11 Own interpretation · 3 Own method · 2 No basis given

Verify all 17 references — free account

Show all 20 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 15
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 19
26 of 26
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed changes in domestic violence are attributable to COVID-19-related restrictions rather than other concurrent pandemic-related factors.

    “Incidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders”
    “the evidence is strong that incidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Stay-at-home orders and the economic impact of the pandemic heightened factors associated with domestic violence, such as male unemployment, childcare stress, financial insecurity, and maladaptive coping.

    “Combined, the stay-at-home orders as well as the economic impact of the pandemic heightened the factors that tend to be associated with domestic violence: increased male unemployment, the stress of childcare and homeschooling, increased financial insecurity, and maladaptive coping strategies.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Official or administrative records are a valid measure of changes in domestic violence incidence.

    “the domestic violence data must have been derived from administrative/official pre-post records (i.e., not retrospective self-reports; see e.g., Hamadani et al. (2020) and Morgan and Boxall (2020)).”
    “our work relies on official records, which suffer from a variety of problems.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The effect sizes from the included studies are comparable enough to be pooled in a meta-analysis.

    “effect sizes were generated for those included studies that reported sufficient information for an effect size to be calculated”
    “The overall mean effect size generated from a random effects restricted maximum likelihood model was 0.66”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The COVID-19 pandemic and related restrictions can be treated as a single treatment for meta-analysis.

    “indicating that “the treatment” (i.e., the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and COVID-19-related restrictions) increased domestic violence.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Factors generally linked to domestic violence—such as isolation, financial strain, marital conflict, and substance use—are and will remain more common during the pandemic.

    “but that have and will continue to be more prevalent during the COVID-19 pandemic.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many women remain at risk of new or ongoing domestic violence because they depend financially on male partners.

    “Women's economic dependence on male partners will continue to place many women at risk for new and continued domestic violence.”
7 of 7

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

1 of 1

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upz = -0.37reported p = .77 · recomputed p = .711

    “z = −0.37, p = .77”

  • Consistentz = 2.24reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .025

    “z = 2.24, p < .05”

2 of 2

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

3 of 3

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Campbell, 2016, An innovative response to family violence after the Canterbury earthquake events: Canterbury family violence collaboration’s achievements, successes, and challenges, Australasian Journal of Disaster and Trauma Studies, 20, 89

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 756

Metadata

Authors
Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Jemison, E., Kaukinen, C., & Knaul, F. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of Mississippi (US)
  • Community Resources for Justice (US)
  • University of Central Florida (US)
Corresponding author
Piquero, Alex R.
Venue
Journal of Criminal Justice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-05
Volume
74
Pages
101806
ISSN
0047-2352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3135751649
Cited by
759
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 65 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 171 · 2023: 205 · 2022: 170 · 2021: 69
FWCI
16.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Criminal Justice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
domestic violence, COVID-19 pandemic, lockdown, stay-at-home orders, public health restrictions, violence against women, effect size

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-06, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-06 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review