JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Male and female physical intimate partner violence and socio-economic position: a cross-sectional international multicentre study in Europe.

Public Health 2016 October
OBJECTIVES: This work explores the association between socio-economic position (SEP) and intimate partner violence (IPV) considering the perspectives of men and women as victims, perpetrators and as both (bidirectional).

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional international multicentre study.

METHODS: A sample of 3496 men and women, (aged 18-64 years), randomly selected from the general population of residents from six European cities was assessed: Athens; Budapest; London; Östersund; Porto; and Stuttgart. Their education (primary, secondary and university), occupation (upper white collar, lower white collar and blue collar) and unemployment duration (never, ≤12 months and >12 months) were considered as SEP indicators and physical IPV was measured with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales.

RESULTS: Past year physical IPV was declared by 17.7% of women (3.5% victims, 4.2% perpetrators and 10.0% bidirectional) and 19.8% of men (4.1% victims, 3.8% perpetrators and 11.9% bidirectional). Low educational level (primary vs university) was associated with female victimisation (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 3.2; 1.3-8.0) and with female bidirectional IPV (4.1, 2.4-7.1). Blue collar occupation (vs upper white) was associated with female victimisation (2.1, 1.1-4.0), female perpetration (3.0, 1.3-6.8) and female bidirectional IPV (4.0, 2.3-7.0). Unemployment duration was associated with male perpetration (>12 months of unemployment vs never unemployed: 3.8; 1.7-8.7) and with bidirectional IPV in both sex (women: 1.8, 1.2-2.7; men: 1.7, 1.0-2.8).

CONCLUSIONS: In these European centres, physical IPV was associated with a disadvantaged SEP. A consistent socio-economic gradient was observed in female bidirectional involvement, but victims or perpetrators-only presented gender specificities according to levels of education, occupation differentiation and unemployment duration potentially useful for designing interventions.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app