Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration among U.S. Adults during COVID-19: A Brief Report
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Anecdotal evidence such as increased calls to domestic violence (DV) hotlines across the globe suggest that there may be an increase of IPV prevalence in association with the COVID-19 outbreak; however, no study has investigated this phenomenon empirically. Objective: To evaluate the association between COVID-19 related conditions and recent use or experience of IPV (since the pandemic outbreak in the U.S). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected online from a sample of noninstitutionalized adults (age 18+) in the U.S. (N=2,045). More than half of the sample self-identified as being in an intimate relationship at the time of the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: A four-item tool was used to assess IPV perpetration and victimization since the outbreak of COVID-19. The rapid tool inquired about two forms of IPV, psychological and physical. Participants self-reported demographic data and recent health histories, including COVID-19 tests results, related symptoms and degree of personal social distancing. We hypothesized that COVID-19 related factors would increase risks of IPV. Results: In this study, self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration. Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with coronavirus, but were denied access to testing, psychological IPV victimization was 3 times greater than those who did not (Exp[B] =3.15, [1.19, 2.29] p <.05). For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using psychological IPV (Exp[B] =3.24, [1.18, 8.89] p <.05) and physical IPV (Exp[B]=3.02, [1.12, 8.17] p <.05) against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient education and community outreach/health care system initiatives focused on IPV risk behaviors may help reduce the potential development of IPV. Continued surveillance is imperative to improve health and well-being along with effective intervention development and implementation.
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
In a cross-sectional online survey of 2,045 U.S. adults during the early COVID-19 period, self-reported COVID-19-related conditions were associated with higher odds of recent IPV victimization and perpetration. State-level COVID-19 case intensity was not found to be a significant IPV risk factor in adjusted models.
Key findings
- Among respondents reporting coronavirus-consistent symptoms but denied testing, psychological IPV victimization was reported as about 3 times greater than among those who did not (Exp[B] = 3.15, [1.19, 2.29], p < .05).
- Testing positive for COVID-19 was associated with more than 3 times the odds of psychological IPV perpetration (Exp[B] = 3.24, [1.18, 8.89], p < .05) and physical IPV perpetration (Exp[B] = 3.02, [1.12, 8.17], p < .05); Table 3 also reports positive testing associated with psychological victimization (OR 3.77, [1.36, 10.42]) and physical victimization (OR 2.77, [1.04, 7.36]).
- Testing negative for the virus was associated with about twice the odds of IPV victimization compared with not being tested (psychological: Exp[B] = 2.09, [1.23, 3.57], p < .01; physical: Exp[B] = 2.20, [1.26, 3.86], p < .01).
- State-level COVID-19 intensity showed group differences, with group 4 having significantly higher IPV victimization rates than group 1, but the discussion states state-level outbreak was not a significant IPV risk factor; job loss due to COVID-19 was reported as associated with 2.5–3 times higher likelihood of IPV perpetration and physical IPV victimization.
Methods
- Cross-sectional observational online survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults age 18+ (N = 2,045), recruited by Qualtrics from an online research panel using stratified quota sampling for sex, age, and race/ethnicity; data collection ran March 17–May 1, 2020, with most completed April 22–30.
- IPV was measured with the 4-item Jellinek inventory for assessing partner violence (J-IPV), assessing psychological and physical IPV victimization and perpetration since the coronavirus crisis started; 58.2% (n = 1,183) reported being in an intimate relationship, and regression models used N = 1,024 respondents in any intimate relationship.
- Analyses included descriptive statistics, Spearman nonparametric correlations, generalized linear modeling for state-level COVID-19 case groups, and four binary logistic regressions controlling for sociodemographics.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: results must be interpreted cautiously because data were self-reported and cross-sectional; the models did not include key variables such as race/ethnicity, and a more comprehensive model is expected to improve explanatory power and precision.
- Evident from the text: the online Qualtrics panel sample was highly educated (87.4% completed a college degree) and predominantly White/European-American (62.6%), which may limit generalizability.
- Evident from the text: the J-IPV was originally developed to assess IPV victimization and perpetration in patients entering substance abuse treatment, and the cross-sectional design cannot establish temporal or causal direction.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
0 of 10 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
- Findingown data
Differences between coronavirus intensity groups were significant for psychological IPV victimization (χ2(3)=9.29, p<.05).
“Differences between coronavirus intensity groups were estimated for Psychological Victimization: χ (3) 2 =9.29, p<.05;”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Differences between coronavirus intensity groups were significant for psychological IPV perpetration (χ2(3)=9.99, p<.05).
“and Psychological Perpetration: χ (3) 2 =9.99, p<.05.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Differences between coronavirus intensity groups were significant for physical IPV victimization (χ2(3)=10.84, p<.05).
“Physical Victimization: χ (3) 2 =10.84, p<.05;”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
People reporting COVID-19 positive were 3 times more likely to use IPV.
“People reporting COVID-19 positive were nearly 3 times more likely to experience IPV and 3 times more likely to use IPV.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Group 4 (states with 24000 or more positive COVID-19 cases) had significantly higher rates of IPV victimization than group 1 (states with 1-5000 positive COVID-19 cases).
“As expected, group 4 had significantly higher rates of IPV victimization than group 1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
People reporting COVID-19 positive were nearly 3 times more likely to experience IPV.
“People reporting COVID-19 positive were nearly 3 times more likely to experience IPV and 3 times more likely to use IPV.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
People who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 were 2.5-3 times more likely to perpetrate IPV.
“People who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 were 2.5-3 times more likely to perpetrate IPV and experience physical IPV.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using physical IPV against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times (Exp[B]=3.02, [1.12, 8.17], p<.05).
“For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using psychological IPV (Exp[B] =3.24, [1.18, 8.89] p <.05) and physical IPV (Exp[B]=3.02,[1.12, 8.17] p <.05) against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
People who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 were 2.5-3 times more likely to experience physical IPV.
“People who lost their jobs due to COVID-19 were 2.5-3 times more likely to perpetrate IPV and experience physical IPV.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
State level of COVID-19 outbreak was not found to be a significant IPV risk factor.
“However, state level of COVID-19 outbreak was not found to be a significant IPV risk factor.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
When respondents had no symptoms consistent with COVID-19, they showed lower probability to experience physical IPV victimization (Exp[B]=0.56, [.32, .96], p<.05).
“physical: Exp[B] =0.56, [.32, .96]p <.05)”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
If a respondent reported they were not going to work because of COVID-19, the probability of being a victim of psychological IPV increased by 62% (Exp[B]=1.62).
“If a respondent reported they were not going to work because of COVID-19, probability of being a victim of psychological IPV increased by 62% (Exp[B] =1.62,”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Respondents who were tested for the virus but received negative results were about twice as likely to be victims of IPV than those not tested (Exp[B]=2.09, [1.23, 3.57], p<.01).
“Respondents who were tested for the virus but received negative results were twice as likely of being victims of IPV than those not tested (Exp[B] =2.09, [1.23, 3.57] p <.01; =0.57, [.33, .96]p <.05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization.
“In this study, self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingnone given
Residents in states with low levels of COVID-19 were impacted with IPV at lower rates than states with higher virus spread.
“Residents in states with low-levels of COVID-19 were impacted with IPV at lower rates than states with higher virus spread.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with coronavirus, but were denied access to testing, psychological IPV victimization was 3 times greater than those who did not (Exp[B]=3.15, [1.19, 2.29], p<.05).
“Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with coronavirus, but were denied access to testing, psychological IPV victimization was 3 times greater than those who did not (Exp[B] =3.15, [1.19, 2.29] p <.05).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using psychological IPV against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times (Exp[B]=3.24, [1.18, 8.89], p<.05).
“For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using psychological IPV (Exp[B] =3.24, [1.18, 8.89] p <.05) and physical IPV (Exp[B]=3.02,[1.12, 8.17] p <.05) against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Findingown data
Self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV perpetration.
“In this study, self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Premisecitation
Studies examining connections between the COVID-19 outbreak and IPV are scarce.
“However, studies examining connections between the COVID-19 outbreak and IPV are skim.5,6”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites [5] van Gelder, N. , Peterman, A. , Potts, A. , et al. COVID-19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase the risk of intimate partner violence. EClinicalMedicine. 2020 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [6] Bavel, J.J.V. , Baicker, K. , Boggio, P.S. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat Hum Behav. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z source
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
This study provides initial evidence that the pandemic is associated with increased likelihood of IPV.
“This study provides initial evidence the pandemic is associated with increased likelihood of IPV, which seems to support emerging evidence 16 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] McLay M. When “Shelter-in-Place” Isn’t Shelter That’s Safe: A Rapid Analysis of Domestic Violence Case Differences During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Stay-at-Home Orders (preprint) medRxiv doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.05.29.20117366 source
Not checked in the free run.
- Rests on an assumption: The Qualtrics online research panel with stratified quota sampling yielded a sample representative of U.S. adults on sex, age, and race/ethnicity.
- Rests on an assumption: Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
- Rests on an assumption: Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
- Rests on an assumption: The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
- Rests on an assumption: The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 8
- May combine two claims. 2
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe sample was recruited by Qualtrics from an online research panel using stratified quota sampling to ensure sample characteristics of sex, age, and race/ethnicity were representative of the U.S.
“Participants were recruited by a survey company (Qualtrics) from an online research panel using stratified quota sampling to ensure sample characteristics of sex, age, and race/ethnicity were representative of the U.S.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The Qualtrics online research panel with stratified quota sampling yielded a sample representative of U.S. adults on sex, age, and race/ethnicity.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenPost-hoc pairwise comparisons between expected violence rates were subject to the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.
“These comparisons were subject to the Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataMissing data for dependent variables were low (0%-3.4%).
“For dependent variables, missing data were low (0%-3.4%).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
Study design and conductcitationThe J-IPV was selected for its strong psychometric properties and brevity.
“Drawing on a recent review of brief IPV screening measures 13 , the J-IPV was selected for its strong psychometric properties and brevity.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [13] Davis M & Padilla-Medina DM . Brief Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Screening Tools: A Scoping Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2019. 1524838019888545. source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationSocial scientists, medical professionals, and public-health experts have called for urgent research into the connection between COVID-19 and IPV as a critical step in responding to mounting and/or anticipated IPV.
“Social scientists, medical professionals, and public-health experts have called for urgent research into this area as a critical step in responding to mounting and/or anticipated IPV.7,8,9,10,11”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 5 sources checked- cites [7] handan JS , Taylor J , Bradbury-Jones C , Nirantharakumar K , Kane E , Bandyopadhyay S. COVID-19: a public health approach to manage domestic violence is needed. Lancet Public Health. 2020; published online May 8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30112-2 source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [8] Bradbury□Jones, C. , & Isham, L. The pandemic paradox: the consequences of COVID□19 on domestic violence. Journal of clinical nursing. 2020. source
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [9] Adel Elkbuli Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. In press. https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(20)30307-7/pdf
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [10] Mohler, G. , Bertozzi, A. L. , Carter, J. , et al. Impact of social distancing during COVID- 19 pandemic on crime in Indianapolis. (preprint)
Not checked in the free run.
- cites [11] World Health Organization. COVID-19 and violence against women: what the health sector/system can do (No. WHO/SRH/20.04). 2020. World Health Organization. Available online: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance. Accessed online May 20, 2020.
Not checked in the free run.
Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe J-IPV is a 4-item screening tool developed to assess IPV victimization and perpetration in patients entering substance abuse treatment.
“The J-IPV is a 4-item screening tool developed to assess IPV victimization and perpetration in patients entering substance abuse treatment 12 .”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [12] source
Not checked in the free run.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe models in this brief report did not include key variables such as race/ethnicity.
“An additional limitation is that the models in this brief report did not include key variables such as race/ethnicity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningThe results must be interpreted with caution due to study limitations such as utilizing self-reported data from a cross-sectional survey.
“The results must be interpreted with caution due to study limitations such as utilizing selfreported data from a cross-sectional survey.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
The paper relies on this without support.
The Qualtrics online research panel with stratified quota sampling yielded a sample representative of U.S. adults on sex, age, and race/ethnicity.
“Participants were recruited by a survey company (Qualtrics) from an online research panel using stratified quota sampling to ensure sample characteristics of sex, age, and race/ethnicity were representative of the U.S.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Self-reported COVID-19 test results and symptoms accurately reflect actual COVID-19 status.
“Participants self-reported demographic data and recent health histories, including COVID-19 tests results, related symptoms and degree of personal social distancing.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Participants' self-reports of IPV perpetration and victimization are accurate.
“IPV was measured using the Jellinek inventory for assessing partner violence (J-IPV).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The sociodemographic covariates included in the models adequately control for confounding of the COVID-19–IPV associations.
“Four binary logistic regressions within a GLM framework were performed to determine impact of coronavirus exposure, government restrictions, and social distancing differences on IPV probability, while controlling for sociodemographics.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The study had adequate statistical power to detect the reported associations.
“After eligibility screening, refusals, and removal of poor-quality responses, 2,045 participants' data were collected.”
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?
In an online US survey, individuals who reported having COVID-19 symptoms had increased risks of victimisation and perpetration of IPV; both psychological and physical IPV were more than three times greater for individuals who reported testing positive to COVID-19.
“An online survey in the United States indicated that those who reported having COVID-19 symptoms had increased risks of victimisation and perpetration of IPV, and both psychological IPV and physical IPV were more than three times greater for individuals who reported testing positive to COVID-19 (Davis et al., 2020).”
From COVID-19 lockdowns, intimate partner violence and coercive control. (2021) · cites this paper as Davis et al., 2020
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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.
Reported odds ratio falls outside its confidence interval
MajorThe reported odds ratio of 3.15 is greater than the stated 95% confidence interval's upper bound of 2.29. An estimate cannot fall outside its own confidence interval.
“Exp[B] =3.15”
“[1.19, 2.29]”
Johns Hopkins COVID-19 index cites an unrelated reference
MinorThe text attributes the state-level COVID-19 index to Johns Hopkins University and cites reference 14, but reference 14 is a regression textbook by Myers.
“Based on a COVID-19 index reported by Johns Hopkins University 14”
“14. Myers RH. Classical and Modern Regression with Applications, 2nd Ed., PWS-Kent, Boston. 1990.”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 61
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Adel Elkbuli Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. In press. https://www.ajemjournal.com/article/S0735-6757(20)30307-7/pdf
- Authors
- Davis, M., Gilbar, O., & Padilla-Medina, D.
- Affiliations
- Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
- The University of Texas at Arlington (US)
- University of Puerto Rico at Río Piedras (PR)
- Corresponding author
- Davis, Maxine
- Venue
- Violence and Victims
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2020-06-09
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 583-603
- ISSN
- 0886-6708 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3211102949
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nd
- Locations
- Violence and Victims (publishedVersion)
- medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
- Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
- Keywords
- intimate partner violence, COVID-19 pandemic, violent victimization, violence perpetration, psychological violence, physical abuse, COVID-19 testing access, job loss, social distancing, public health response
- MeSH terms
- Intimate Partner Violence, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, United States, Crime Victims, Pandemics
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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
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
