Cited by 12Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 42 of the 42 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How accurate and useful are published UK prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV)? Rapid review and methodological commentary

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK general population and in the low-risk clinical population and to identify the methodological challenges presented by this task. Design/methodology/approach A rapid review of the evidence was conducted. Data were extracted with the help of pre-designed tools and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. The data extracted was both qualitative and quantitative. Findings In the general population, crime survey data gave a range of past-year IPV prevalence from 1.8% to 4.5%. This was higher in women than men (2.5%–6.3% vs 0.9%–2.7%). In both the general and low-risk clinical population, there was little data on pregnant women or gay men and lesbians. No significant relationships between IPV and ethnicity were found. Different surveys used different definitions of IPV and domestic violence, making it difficult to give an accurate estimate. There were also problems with data accuracy. Originality/value This research is original and contributes to the knowledge about IPV screening and if prevalence studies help.

Overview

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 · 10.1108/jcp-11-2020-0048

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2008, Prescription for Change: lesbian and Bisexual Women’s Health Check

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ali, P., Allmark, P., Booth, A., Seedat, F., Woods, H. B., & McGarry, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Public Health England (GB)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
Venue
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2021-07-12
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
129-140
ISSN
2009-3829 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3162758515
Cited by
12
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
FWCI
1.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Criminal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, prevalence estimates, crime surveys, gender differences, pregnant women, gay and lesbian people, ethnicity, IPV screening, United Kingdom

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