CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 239Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectCrime Patterns and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 98 of the 101 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intimate Partner Violence and the Rural–Urban–Suburban Divide: Myth or Reality? A Critical Review of the Literature

Edwards, Katie M.·2015·Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
DOI 10.1177/1524838014557289
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The author of this article presents a review of the published empirical and theoretical literature to date on similarities and differences in intimate partner violence (IPV) in rural locales compared to urban and suburban locales. A review of 63 studies indicates that (1) the rates of IPV are generally similar across rural, urban, and suburban locales, although some groups of rural women (e.g., multiracial and separated/divorced) may be at increased risk for IPV compared to similar groups of urban women, and rates of intimate partner homicide may be higher in rural locales than urban and suburban locales; (2) IPV perpetrator and victim characteristics in rural locales are generally similar to IPV perpetrator and victim characteristics in other locales with the exception of some demographic characteristics that can generally be accounted for by broader rural–urban–suburban demographic differences; (3) IPV perpetrators in rural locales, compared with perpetrators in urban locales, may perpetrate more chronic and severe IPV, which could be due to the higher rates of substance abuse and unemployment documented among rural perpetrators; (4) IPV victims in rural locales may have worse psychosocial and physical health outcomes due to the lack of availability, accessibility, and quality of IPV services; and (5) attitudes about IPV vary to some extent across locales, with individuals in rural locales generally supporting less governmental involvement in IPV issues than in urban locales. Limitations of the literature are reviewed and suggestions for research are provided as well as implications for practice and policy efforts, which primarily center on improving availability, accessibility, and quality of IPV services in rural locales.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1524838014557289

Cites

98 of 98 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 101 references

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. Bachman R., 1995, Violence against women: Estimates from the redesigned survey
  2. Bergman L., 1992, Social Work, 9, 21
  3. Bonomi A. E., 2004, Rural and urban women’s interpretations of intimate partner violence: The role of language in case findings
  4. Carlson B. E., 2002, Public opinion about domestic violence
  5. Conger R. D., 1997, Rural substance abuse: State of knowledge and issues, 37
  6. Dahl A., 2011, A phenomenological comparison of the attitudes and perceptions of police offers and mental health professionals when responding to female domestic violence victims in a rural and suburban setting
  7. Dekeseredy W., 2009, Dangerous exists: Escaping abusive relationships in rural America
  8. Dillon M., 2006, Values and religion in rural American: Attitudes towards abortion and same-sex marriage
  9. Grama J. I., 2000, American Journal of Family Law, 14, 173
  10. Greenfeld L. A., 1998, Violence by intimates: Analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses, boyfriends, and girlfriends
  11. Haberyan A., 2008, Psychology Journal, 5, 158
  12. Irving Crespi and Associates, 1987, New Jersey public opinion survey regarding domestic violence
  13. Kentucky Attorney General’s Task Force on Domestic Violence Crime, 1993, Domestic violence fatalities: A statistical report, October 1993
  14. Olimb D., 2002, Rural Social Work, 7, 16
  15. Pruitt L. R., 2007, Utah Law Review, 13, 421
  16. Pruitt L. R., 2008, Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society, 23, 346
  17. Skelton J., 2007, General Dentistry, 55, 581
  18. Yun I., 2009, The Southwest Journal of Criminal Justice, 6, 145

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 239

Related

Metadata

Authors
Edwards, K. M.
Affiliations
University of New Hampshire (US)
Corresponding author
Edwards, Katie M.
ORCID
Edwards, Katie M.
Venue
Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2014-12-04
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
359-373
ISSN
  • 1524-8380 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8324
DOI
10.1177/1524838014557289
OpenAlex
W1987515153
Cited by
239
References
101
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 3
FWCI
1.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Trauma Violence & Abuse (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of New Hampshire Scholars Repository (University of New Hampshire at Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Office on Violence Against Women
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
intimate partner violence, urban-rural differences, rural areas, intimate partner homicide, offender characteristics, victim characteristics, substance abuse, unemployment, health outcomes
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Psychology, Comparative, Rural Population, Sexual Partners, Suburban Population, Urban Population, Battered Women, Crime Victims

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