CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 127Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceReproductive Health and TechnologiesReproductive Health and Contraception

Prevalence of intimate partner violence against infertile women in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Wang, Yuanyuan, Fu, Yu, Ghazi, Parastou, Gao, Qin, Tian, Tian, Kong, Fei, Zhan, Siyan, Liu, Chaojie +2 more·2022·The Lancet Global Health
DOI 10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00098-5PMC PMC9115867
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Infertility and intimate partner violence (IPV) are of serious concern globally, yet the prevalence of IPV against infertile women has not been quantified at the regional or global level.We aimed to estimate the prevalence of IPV against infertile women and its variation in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). MethodsWe did a systematic literature search of 11 databases for articles published between database inception and Sept 30, 2021, and performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled prevalence and 95% CI of IPV against infertile women in LMICs.We used subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to explore variation in the prevalence by study period (2010 and before vs after 2010), study region (Africa, west Asia, south Asia, and east Asia), type of infertility (primary or secondary), risk of bias (high, moderate, or low), sample size (continuous variable), and measuring tools (the modified Abuse Assessment Screen, the WHO Violence Against Women instrument, or the revised Conflict Tactics Scales).This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021248448.Findings Of 2661 references identified (2637 via database searches and 24 via secondary searches), 120 full-text articles were reviewed, and we identified 30 relevant studies conducted in nine LMICs between 2000 and 2019.25 studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, with a total sample size of 7164 participants.The 12-month prevalence of IPV among infertile women was 36•0% (95% CI 20•4-55•2), compared with a lifetime prevalence of 47•2% (31•7-63•3).The most common type of IPV was psychological violence, with a prevalence of 24•6% (11•3-45•6) over 12 months and 51•5% (38•8-64•0) over a lifetime (slightly higher than the pooled overall rate due to different data sources), respectively; followed by physical violence (11•9% [5•2-25•1] and 20•2% [12•1-31•7]); sexual violence (8•7% [2•6-25•0] and 11•5% [6•1-20•7]); and economic coercion (2•6% [0•4-13•7] and 9•8% [5•7-16•5]).Significant variations of lifetime prevalence estimates were presented by study period (R²=39•46%), region (R²=50•95%), and measuring tools (R²=54•27%).Interpretation A high prevalence of IPV against infertile women is evident despite heterogeneity across studies.IPV screening, counselling, and structural interventions should be tailored to address this urgent issue at multiple levels of society.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00098-5

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 62 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Wang, Y., Fu, Y., Ghazi, P., Gao, Q., Tian, T., Kong, F., Zhan, S., Liu, C., Bloom, D. E., & Qiao, J.
Affiliations
  • Peking University Third Hospital (CN)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
  • Bloom, David E
  • Qiao, Jie
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet Global Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-06
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
e820-e830
ISSN
2214-109X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/s2214-109x(22)00098-5
PMC
PMC9115867
OpenAlex
W4280558750
Cited by
127
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 6
FWCI
3.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The Lancet Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • La Trobe University
Funders
  • China Medical Board (CMB OC1–21–431)
  • World Health Organization (GJ2–2021-WHOSO-10)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Reproductive Health and Technologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Reproductive Health and Contraception
Keywords
intimate partner violence, infertility, infertile women, low- and middle-income countries, prevalence, psychological violence, physical violence, sexual violence, lifetime prevalence, 12-month prevalence, risk factors, domestic violence, reproductive health, women's health, conflict tactics, Conflict Tactics Scale, primary infertility, secondary infertility, risk of bias
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Developing Countries, Female, Humans, Infertility, Female, Poverty, Risk Factors, Prevalence

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.

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