CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 350Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Risk and Protective Factors for Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Prospective–Longitudinal Studies

Open access
Yakubovich, Alexa R., Stöckl, Heidi, Murray, Joseph, Melendez-Torres, G. J., Steinert, Janina I., Glavin, Calla E. Y., Humphreys, David K.·2018·American Journal of Public Health
DOI 10.2105/ajph.2018.304428PMC PMC5993370
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background. The estimated lifetime prevalence of physical or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) is 30% among women worldwide. Understanding risk and protective factors is essential for designing effective prevention strategies. Objectives. To quantify the associations between prospective–longitudinal risk and protective factors and IPV and identify evidence gaps. Search methods. We conducted systematic searches in 16 databases including MEDLINE and PsycINFO from inception to June 2016. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42016039213). Selection criteria. We included published and unpublished studies available in English that prospectively analyzed any risk or protective factor(s) for self-reported IPV victimization among women and controlled for at least 1 other variable. Data collection and analysis. Three reviewers were involved in study screening. One reviewer extracted estimates of association and study characteristics from each study and 2 reviewers independently checked a random subset of extractions. We assessed study quality with the Cambridge Quality Checklists. When studies investigated the same risk or protective factor using similar measures, we computed pooled odds ratios (ORs) by using random-effects meta-analyses. We summarized heterogeneity with I 2 and τ 2 . We synthesized all estimates of association, including those not meta-analyzed, by using harvest plots to illustrate evidence gaps and trends toward negative or positive associations. Main results. Of 18 608 studies identified, 60 were included and 35 meta-analyzed. Most studies were based in the United States. The strongest evidence for modifiable risk factors for IPV against women were unplanned pregnancy (OR = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.20, 1.31) and having parents with less than a high-school education (OR = 1.55; 95% CI = 1.10, 2.17). Being older (OR = 0.96; 95% CI = 0.93, 0.98) or married (OR = 0.93; 95% CI = 0.87, 0.99) were protective. Conclusions. To our knowledge, this is the first systematic, meta-analytic review of all risk and protective factors for IPV against women without location, time, or publication restrictions. Unplanned pregnancy and having parents with less than a high-school education, which may indicate lower socioeconomic status, were shown to be risk factors, and being older or married were protective. However, no prospective–longitudinal study investigated the associations between IPV against women and any community or structural factor outside the United States, and more studies investigated risk factors related to women as opposed to their partners. Public health implications. This review highlights that prospective evidence for perpetrator- and context-related risk and protective factors for women’s experiences of IPV outside of the United States is lacking and urgently needed to inform global policy recommendations. The current evidence base of prospective studies suggests that, at least in the United States, education and sexual health interventions may be effective targets for preventing IPV against women, with young, unmarried women at greatest risk.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2018.304428

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 57 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.594 · DOI
  2. Abajobir AA, 2017, Ethiop Med J, 55, 325

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 350

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Yakubovich, A. R., Stöckl, H., Murray, J., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Steinert, J. I., Glavin, C. E. Y., & Humphreys, D. K.
Affiliations
  • Universidade Federal de Pelotas (BR)
  • Alexa R. Yakubovich, Janina I. Steinert, and Calla E. Y. Glavin are with the Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Heidi Stöckl is with the Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. Joseph Murray is with the Center for Epidemiological Research, Universidade Federal de Pelotas, Pelotas, Brazil. G. J. Melendez-Torres is with the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health...
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Publisher
American Public Health Association
Published
2018-07
Volume
108
Issue
7
Pages
e1-e11
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
DOI
10.2105/ajph.2018.304428
PMC
PMC5993370
OpenAlex
W2804233370
Cited by
349
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 52 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 73 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13
FWCI
3.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Cancer Research UK
  • British Heart Foundation (MR/KO232331/1)
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research (DFS152265)
  • Economic and Social Research Council (ES/P003176/1)
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, violence against women, risk factors, protective factors, unintended pregnancy, parental education, socioeconomic status, age, marital status, IPV prevention, evidence gaps
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Age Factors, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Crime Victims, Substance-Related Disorders, Pregnancy, Unplanned, Protective Factors

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