Intimate Partner Violence Statistics

Introduction

This section presents the findings relevant to the study. Specifically, the findings are based on 4 studies conducted by different scholars. The studies by Flatly (2017), Arroyo et al (2017), Ramsay (2012) and Yakubovich (2019) are exclusively discussed in this chapter.

Prevalence of IPV

The study by Flatly (2017) paints a clear picture of intimate partner violence by detailing crucial statistics on the prevalence and nature of domestic violence in the UK. To begin with, the author espouses various elements of intimate partner violence to include domestic violence, sexual violence against the partner, non-sexual violence against the partner and partner stalking. Flatly (2017) relies on the statistics from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) to present an analysis of the prevalence of IPV in the UK. Flatly (2017) explains that in 2015, women were twice as likely victims of domestic violence than men. 27.1% of women and 13.2% of men reported being a victim of any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims aged 16 to 59. The main dissimilarity between men and women was for the experience of sexual assault (including attempts), with women (19.0%) being 5 times as likely as men (3.8%) to have experienced it since the age of 16. For women, the frequently experienced types of intimate violence since age 16, covered by the survey, were non-sexual partner abuse (20.7%), stalking (20.2%) and sexual assault (19.0%), for men, the most commonly experienced types of abuse were stalking (9.8%) and non-sexual partner abuse (8.6%). However, statistics for the year ended 2014 presented significant differences (Flatly 2017). 8.2% of women and 4.0% of men reported having experienced any type of domestic abuse in 2014, equivalent to an estimated 1.3 million female victims and 600,000 male victims aged between 16 and 59 in 2014, non-sexual partner abuse and stalking were the most common forms of the separate types of intimate violence - twice as many women as men testified having experienced non-sexual partner abuse (5.8% of women and 2.5% of men) and stalking (4.9% of women and 2.4% of men) of the discrete types of bosom violence sub-categories, non-sexual family abuse had the smallest difference between the prevalence experienced by men compared with women (1.4% and 2.2% respectively), this difference was still statistically noteworthy. In 2014, 2.7% of women and 0.7% of men had experienced some form of sexual assault (including attempts). The majority of these were less serious sexual assault, which consist of offensive exposure and uninvited sexual touching around 4 times as many women as men had experienced less serious sexual assault (2.4% of women compared with 0.6% of men) - less than 0.1% of men had experienced serious sexual assault (including attempts) compared with 0.7% of women, and less than 0.1% of men had experienced serious sexual assault (excluding attempts) compared with 0.4% of women.

Over the years, the trends in the prevalence of intimate partner violence have identified interesting patterns. (Flatly, 2017). The year ending March 2015 CSEW self-completion module shows that 6.1% of adults aged 16 to 59 experienced domestic cases of abuse in 2014, the lowest estimate since the series began. The findings of Flatly (2017) clearly outline the data on the effects of IPV on young people. The majority of partner abuse victims (75%) did not sustain a physical injury as a result of the abuse, and for those that did sustain an injury, these were often relatively minor injuries. This is in the context that over half of partner abuse victims (61%) recounted experiencing non-physical abuse. A quarter (25%) of partner abuse victims reported that they sustained some sort of physical injury. The most common type of injuries sustained was minor bruising or black eye (17%) and scratches (12%). There were no significant differences between the prevalence of physical injury for male and female victims (29% and 23% respectively). Victims were presented with a list of other non-physical effects and were asked if they had sustained any of these as a result of the abuse. Female victims were more likely than male victims to report that they had sustained non-physical effects (51% compared with 37%). For both male and female victims, the category most likely to be reported as ‘mental or emotional problems’ (30% of male victims and 47% of female victims) followed by ‘stopped trusting people or difficulty in other relationships’ (19% of male and 22% of female victims)

Flatly (2017) further examines the nature of intimate partner violence through other enabling factors like alcoholism. The findings postulate that victims were more likely to report that they believed the offender was under the influence of alcohol (17%) rather than illicit drugs (10%). Female victims were more likely than male victims to perceive that the offender was under the influence of drugs (12% compared with 3%). There were no statistically significant differences between the proportions of female and male victims perceiving the offender to be under the influence of alcohol (18% of female victims compared with 15% of male victims). Victims were more likely to report that the offender was under the influence of alcohol or illicit drugs than they themselves. However, 7% of victims reported that they were under the influence of alcohol and 1% reported that they were under the influence of illicit drugs the last time they suffered abuse. There was no statistically significant difference between the male and female victims with regards to reporting whether they were under the influence of alcohol or under the influence of illicit drugs. Flatly (2017) further reports that around a fifth (19%) of partner abuse victims that reported abuse in the last year stated that they currently shared, or had previously shared, accommodation with their abusive partner. Of these victims, 42% reported leaving the accommodation because of the abuse, even if it was for only one night. The proportion of those that left the accommodation because of the abuse was similar for male and female victims. Of those who left the shared accommodation, 65% spent their first night with relatives, while staying with friends or neighbours was the next most likely destination (18%).

Reasons mentioned most frequently for not leaving the shared accommodation were ‘presence of children' (54%), ‘love or feelings for partner' (36%) and ‘never considered leaving' (32%). These findings are generally similar for previous years. A cohort study by Yakubovich et al (2019) on 2128 women and 1145 men identifies key findings on the prevalence of IPV among young adults in the UK. The authors describe that intimate partner violence in the UK was conveyed with severe consequences such as mortality, mental health disorders, and injury. Yakubovich et al (2019) explain that IPV, particularly among women, should be a civic health priority, with 23% of women and 11% of men recording any physical, psychological or sexual IPV in their lifetime. The study used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC). The birth-cohort study encouraged the participants to continuously fill self-completing questionnaires since age 5 (now in early adulthood) making it ideal for gauging IPV. The sampling frame included all pregnant women resident in one of three health districts in Avon, the UK due between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1992. The initial number of pregnancies enrolled was 14 541. The study findings explain that the most often experienced IPV was psychological (25% of participants reported humiliation, name-calling or shouting) and the least experienced was sexual (4% reported involuntary sex). Among those who experienced any IPV, the bulk of violent acts (>78%) ensued after age 18. Furthermore, the participants reported that after the violence, the victims experience at least one deleterious impact with the most common being feeling dismayed (78%) or angry (75%). The least common impacts of IPV were the positive ones: 13% of participants reported that the violence made them feel loved wanted or protected; 14% found the violence comical. Overall, 37% of participants reported experiencing any IPV and 29% experienced any IPV after age 18.

In gender-based comparison, the study establishes that for all IPV victimization items, regardless of whether lifetime or early adulthood (ages 18–21) was measured, ominously more women experienced violence than men. The largest percentage difference was for the lifetime prevalence of compelled sex (15% women, 4% men). Following the IPV, 56% of women felt scared of their partner compared to 14% of men. The study generally settles that every test indicated that women experienced more frequent and severe IPV overall than men, in both their lifetimes and early adulthood: women experienced more frequent and a greater number of acts of IPV compared to men; more women than men experienced any IPV (with or without negative impact); and, among those who had experienced any IPV, women experienced more adverse impacts than men (Yakubovich et al 2019). A cross-sectional survey by Ramsay et al. (2012) was carried out as part of a randomized controlled trial (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety; IRIS) exploring whether a training and support package targeted at general practice teams increased the identification of women suffering domestic violence and successive referral to specialist agencies. The study was focused on a sample of forty-eight of the 82 eligible general practices who participated in the IRIS trial (31 declined and three withdrew before data collection). Eligible practices were situated in two urban primary care trust areas (Hackney in east London, and Bristol) helping culturally and ethnically assorted patient residents. Practices were excluded if they did not use electronic records or the study investigators worked in the practice.

Following the study, Ramsay et al. (2012) presented critical findings from their study and reported that seventy-eight percent of clinicians asserted the presence of a relationship between alcohol/drugs use and domestic violence, but only 38% agreed that female alcohol and drug abusers are likely to have a history of domestic violence. The majority of responders (64%) wrongly agreed that alcohol abuse is a leading cause of domestic violence, with GPs more likely to believe this (70%) than practice nurses (49%). Between 25% and 44% of the clinicians concurred with four of the statements relating to feeling unprepared to handle patients experiencing domestic violence. A larger percentage, 56%, established that they did not have sufficient training to assist in addressing situations of domestic violence. The practice nurses reported being less prepared than GPs on all scale items. The study furthermore observed that most clinicians agreed that it is not possible to identify abuse by the way women behave (59%) or without asking directly (74%). However, less than half (43%) reported being comfortable discussing domestic violence, and only about one-fifth thought they could gather facts to detect abuse if the patient presented a disorder like depression or migraine (22%). Approximately half of the clinicians assumed that their practices invigorated a reaction to domestic violence (49%). Additionally, 59% alleged that they were able to make suitable commendations to community services, but only 40% stated that they had done so. For all these items, GPs responded more favourably than the nurses.

Arroyo et al (2017) conducted a systematic review in a bid to establish short term intervention measures that can be adopted following intimate partner violence. Their systematic review and meta-analysis concentrated on short term psychotherapeutic modalities used when working with survivors of IPV. The authors identified two broad objectives that guided their review. First, the review sought to identify and describe short-term psychotherapy interventions that have been delivered to IPV survivors and the nature of such interventions. This was done through a systematic review with a qualitative summary of identified studies. Second, the study wanted to quantitatively produce targeted results of short-term psychotherapy interventions to both deliver an overall estimation of the effect of such interventions and, where possible, reconnoiter possible arbiter variables. This review was focused on dissertations and peer-reviewed articles that were focused on short term psychotherapeutic interventions in IPV and a total of 21 studies were reviewed in this study. The findings of Arroyo et al (2017) seek to answer the critical questions around the psychotherapeutic interventions to IPV. The author report that individuals who received treatment relished roughly 50% gains on targeted outcomes compared to those who did not. Across the 24 comparison groups in this study, 23 of the study level effects were positive and 17 reached statistical significance. Furthermore, Participants appeared to gain most in the areas of decreased PTSD symptoms, increased self-esteem, decreased indicators of depression and general distress, and increases in life functioning. Indeed, these effects were in the large range with percentile gains such that receiving the intervention, versus not having the intervention, resulted in gains ranging from 27% to 30%. More moderate effects were found for outcomes such as substance abuse, emotional well-being, a sense of safety, and actual instances of subsequent IPV with gains in 14% to17% range. Arroyo et al (2017) results also showed that treatment dosage matters and that generally more is better. Specifically, more sessions and more intervention time were linked to better outcomes. Of course, there may be many confounds that could explain this relationship; however, their study data suggest that very ephemeral interventions may not be as effective as longer interventions. This is not surprising due to the complex nature of IPV and the manifold needs and obstacles survivors face. Correspondingly, their results suggest that individually conveyed interventions are greater to group interventions. While group interventions are effective, those receiving individual attention received more benefit.

Regarding the durability of the effects of interventions, Arroyo et al (2017) explain that effect sizes instantaneously after treatment were in the mammoth range immediately after treatment through about 3 months after treatment. Studies that measured outcomes at the 6 and 12 months mark established that effects were in the small range (though still meaningful and statistically significant range). This diminution may be due to recession to the mean, as it could be imagined that individuals who first seek intervention are in a state of ‘‘crisis’’ or high problem levels upon entering treatment and these levels simply return to a normal level with the passage of time (Arroyo et al 2017).

Conclusion

Intimate partner violence is a common occurrence and comes with accompanying effects social, economic and psychological. This chapter has presented the findings in detail on the prevalence of intimate partner violence, the effects of such violence and the interventions against the intimate partner violence based on four studies. The following chapters will provide a detailed discussion of these findings against other relevant studies that are not covered in this chapter.

Discussion and conclusion

This chapter presents a detailed discussion of the findings. In this section, the findings from the four case studies shall be compared and contrasted in line with the study objectives. The themes identified from these case studies will be comprehensively compared and analyzed in relation to other literature.

The prevalence of IPV

Studies have presented interesting results on the nature and prevalence of intimate partner violence. Different studies have presented contrasting statistics on the prevalence of intimate partner violence. From the findings detailed in the previous chapter, Flatly (2017) explains that in the year ending 2015, statistics from the CSEW presented that 27.1% of women and 13/75 of men experienced any form of domestic violence. These statistics, however, vary with those of other studies. Yakubovich et al. (2019) point out that in their study, 23% and 11% of women and men respectively experienced any form of domestic violence in their lifetime. Similarly, the world health organization (2012) study on multinationals points out that 13-61% of women reported having experienced physical violence. It is therefore evident that intimate partner violence is widespread and a common occurrence in countries across the globe, UK included. The other important feature to note in the trends of Intimate partner violence is the pronounced occurrence of the forms of violence utilized. Studies have identified interesting trends about the common ways through which intimate partner violence is manifested (Miller et al 2013). Physical abuse is the common form of intimate partner violence and entails acts perpetrated by the offender that cause physical injury to the victim. This includes acts such as assault, battery, and harassment and the common physical injuries are bruises on the body parts and wounds. It is equally important to explain that physical abuse and the accompanying injuries vary in the magnitude and the level of violence and aggression by the offender is responsible for the magnitude of injuries.

Sexual assault is another common form of intimate partner violence. Findings presented by Flatly (2017) and Yakubovich (2019) (summarized in the appendix) explain that sexual assault is a common form of intimate partner violence. Sexual assault is manifested through actions like forced sex and stalking. Sexual assault is manifested with consequences such as bruises on the genitals, and contraction of STIs as well as ‘unwanted pregnancies'. Intimidations, name calling, and insults are common actions that amount to psychological abuse and are also present in intimate partner violence (Campbell 1999). Abuse partners occasionally insult their partners whenever they are angry with their partner makes mistakes and this has significant psychological impacts on the victims. The summary in the appendix identifies that the case studies in the findings chapter identified psychological attacks as a form of IPV.

The effect of intimate partner violence on the children

In an environment where intimate partner violence thrives and is a common occurrence between parents, children experience numerous implications resulting from the violence. The table in the appendix section highlights the main themes of the effects of violence on the children and a detailed discussion hereby follows.

Neglect due to irresponsible parenting

Parenting is crucial for the wellbeing of children. Parents play a vital role in providing emotional, physical, and psychosocial development of the children. They provide for the basic needs of the children such as food, clothing, and shelter. Parents also ensure the discipline in children and through their guidance enable children to develop self-management, self-control and decision-making abilities. While studies highlighted different types of parenting, the presence of parents who care and protect their children is crucial for the development of children. According to studies, responsible parenting is characterized by caring for children, providing for children's needs and providing a peaceful environment for the wholesome development of children (Heise 2011). Intimate partner violence exhibited among couples in the family presents numerous effects on the development and growth of children. Parents engaging in domestic violence significantly withdraw their affection to their children and neglect taking good care of them. This is orchestrated by the anger and vengeance feeling on the part of the victim and the perpetrators feeling of guilt especially when children frequently witness the violence meter by one parent to the other (Campbell 2002). As a result of this withdrawal, parents often become less responsible for taking care of their children. The irresponsibility in parenting makes children feel less loved and neglected to expose them to the liberty of engaging in delinquent behaviour. The situation is even worse if alcohol and drug abuse are present in the same family. This combination of domestic violence and alcoholism delineates children from their parents exposing children to the harmful effects of irresponsible parenting.

Academic struggle

Education is paramount in the life of children. Nations have developed policies to enhance the provision of education to the populace. Parents have a responsibility of providing education to their children by enrolling them to school and constantly monitoring their performance in academics. Studies have focused on the role of parents in the academic excellence of their children and identified that parental involvement in the education of children is crucial for the academic performance of the children (Kelly and Wastmarland 2015). In families with domestic violence, significant academic struggles are manifest in the children. This occurs in two main ways. First, children witnessing constant domestic violence among their parents develop stress and depressions especially for adolescent children which significantly reduce their concentration on studies (Holt et al 2008). The lack of concentration in academic results in poor grades and returned academic performance. Secondly, as a result of domestic violence, parental involvement on the academics of the children diminishes creating laxity among children who will occasionally record diminishing academic performance. Furthermore, however, Parents in the constant conflicts often fail to sustain the academic needs of the children such as paying for their school fees providing children with an avenue of laxity in academic performance and other problems like absenteeism. In fact, the presence of alcohol and drugs play a key role in recruiting and enticing children to engage in alcoholism and drug abuse which can lead to addiction and severely affect their academics (Campbell 2002).

Emotional distress

Emotional wellbeing is as important to a child as physical care is. Parents ought to closely monitor, understand and empower emotional/ psychological and cognitive growth of their children. An emotionally stable child will evidently be happy and positive about life. Among things that can curtail the emotional development of children is domestic violence. Studies have established the presence of psychological distress as among the major consequences of intimate partner violence (WHO 2012). these effects are more manifest in children coming from such families. A number of emotional distresses are evident in the children experiencing domestic violence, either as direct victims or witnesses to parent's violence. Stress is the main emotional or psychological effect of domestic violence. Stress can be defined as a psychological condition characterized by frustrations and emotional disability stemming from a frightening experience. Children living in families where intimate partner violence is rampant are at a high risk of developing stress as they constantly reconstruct the incidences and replay the horrifying violence they witnessed (WHO 2012). Stress also stems from a combination of events that follow the violence such as disappearance if one of the parent from home, neglect by parents and failure to access basic needs due to the violence. The psychological implications of stress may include lack of concentration in studies

The other emotional distress effect stemming from domestic violence is increased fear and/or low self-esteem. The heinous nature of domestic violence frightens the children and inculcate in them fear that may last for a lifetime. In fact, children on a daily basis will be living in fear of the violence even if it doesn't occur. This significantly damages their emotional and psychological wellbeing. Decreased self-esteem accompanies the fear that occurs among the children and living with low self-esteem significantly inhibits the psychological growth of the children (Abrahamsky et al 2011).

Social exclusion

Social interactions are very crucial in the life of children. Development of the ability to socialize with other people begins in the early stages of life. Parents play an important role in the socialization of the children. While people are broadly classified as introverted or extroverted, children require basis socialization skills in order to integrate well with their peers, friends, and family as well as members of society. Intimate partner violence creates a feeling of social exclusion among children who even experience discrimination from their peers who know the situation (Miller et al 2013). For instance, other children will tend to withdraw associating with the child who comes from a family with domestic violence. Such blatant behaviour and labeling have serious impacts on the social life of children.

Interventions of IPV

The prevalence, nature, and consequences of intimate partner violence warrants measures to manage the menace and yield the society from numerous cases of domestic violence. Peace and harmony are vital elements in family life and such can be found in domestic violence can be significantly reduced. A discussion of some of the intervention is presented in this section.

Therapeutic interventions

The bulk of the manifestation of intimate partner violence occurs through physical injuries. Ranging from minor bruises to deep cuts wounds, these injuries certainly requires to be addressed once they occur. Hospitals are the primary centers of help for victims of domestic violence and therefore the quality of treatment accorded to these patients matter. Nurses should treat patients from domestic violence with care lest they cause secondary victimization. this is due to the fact that such victims simultaneously ail from other psychological or emotional distress thus nurses' reception of such patient should be professional (WHO 2012). Appropriate treatment leads to recovery from the physical pains and injuries caused by domestic violence. Victims seeking medical attention tend to recover faster from the violence incident and lead a fairly healthy life should revictimization not occur. Treatment, however, follows the normal procedure when seeking treatment in a hospital and the diagnosis includes medicines and dressing of the wound among other methods as prescribed by the doctor. In this regard, patient-centered healthcare is vital in effectively managing the physical pains by the victims (Holt et al 2008). Nurses, having accorded the treatment, may refer patients for counseling services to manage the psychological implications of IPV.

relationship management

Intimate partner violence revolves around relationships and its occurrence have the potential of breaking a relationship or any least weakening the relationships bond. Interestingly, there are instances, as exhibited from the findings previously discussed herein, where intimate partner violence results in feelings of love and attraction by the victim to the aggressor. Empowering people to build and sustain healthy relationships that are violence free is the main objective of the relationship management intervention. Among the initiatives applied include training on building healthy relationships, dealing with conflicts in relationships and unconditional love in marriage, just to mention a few (Ellsberg and Heise 2005). These interventions will translate into effective relationship management in families and reduced domestic violence

Psychosocial empowerment

Psychological and social impacts have been extensively discussed in this section. They are a common occurrence among the victims and children in families with recurring domestic violence. Due to the severe implications of psychosocial effects, efforts should be made to mitigate the situation once it occurs or as a preventative measure. Common measures in psychosocial interventions are counseling, building self-esteem, and self-control (WHO 2012). Other measures include support groups which serve as a second home to the victims. Studies have largely supported psychosocial therapy as an effective way of managing intimate partner violence (Guy et al 2014). Effective psychosocial therapy focuses on issues like drug alcoholism and drug abuse, name-calling, labeling and dehumanizing treatments of the victims of IPV.

Conclusion

Intimate partner violence is no doubt a serious occurrence with severe implications. From its very nature, IPV transcends national, ethnic, religious and gender boundaries. In the UK, which is the focus of our study, women have emerged as the main victims of physical, sexual and psychological violence in the domestic setting. whereas the study was guided by only 4 case study and their biases could potentially be translated into the findings of this study, there are critical insights drawn from this study. Intimate partner violence results in a host of emotional, academic, and psychosocial effects on the children. this study has evaluated these effects and offered possible intervention measures to manage the victims in the aftermath of violence or to prevent the occurrence of violence. this blends both short term and long term measures as well as proactive and intervention. By and large, the UK has the potential of reducing the cases of IPV through an integrated approach that aim at legally dealing with perpetrators of IPV and empowering victims of IPV as well as preventing future occurrence of IPV in families.

References

Abramsky T. Watts C H, Moreno C G, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, Jansen A F M H and Heise L. (2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BioMed Central Public Health, 11:109.

Arroyo, K., Lundahl, B., Butters, R., Vanderloo, M. and Wood, D.S., 2017. Short-term interventions for survivors of intimate partner violence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 18(2), pp.155-171.

Campbell J, Soeken K. (1999). Forced Sex and Intimate Partner Violence. Violence Against Women, 5(9):1017–35.

Campbell J. C. (2002). Health Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence. Lancet, 359(9314):1331–36.

Ellsberg M, and Heise L. (2005) Researching Violence Against Women. A Practical Guide for Researchers and Activists. Washington DC, USA: World Health Organization, PATH.

Heise L. (2011). What works to Prevent Partner Violence? An Evidence Overview. Working paper (version 2.0). London, Department for International Development.

Holt S, Buckley H, and Whelan S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: a review of the literature. Child Abuse and Neglect, 32(8):797–810.

Ramsay J, Gregory A, Dunne D et al. 2012. Domestic violence: knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice of selected UK primary healthcare clinicians. Br J Gen Pract. 62(602): e647–e655 doi: 10.3399/bjgp12X654623

WHO. (2012). Understanding and Addressing Violence Against Women: Intimate Partner Violence. WHO

Yakubovich AR, Heron J, Feder G, et al. 2019. Intimate partner violence victimization in early adulthood: psychometric properties of a new measure and gender differences in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, BMJ Open;9: e025621. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025621