Experiences of intimate partner violence among partners during the perinatal period and the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is not only considered a serious public health issue and a cause of human suffering (National Center for Injury Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015), IPV can be a barrier to utilization of care in vital life phases (Bonomi et al, 2009; Snow Jones, Dienemann, & Schollenberger, 2006), and a determinant of many serious negative health outcomes for affected individuals and their families (Silverman et al, 2020). As a significant contributor to health, social, and economic disparities, violence jeopardizes the fabric of families and transcends all levels of socioeconomic status (Rhodes, 2012). Among those who suffer serious to fatal consequences as a direct result of IPV, the perinatal period has only recently received special attention in research and is extremely scarce (WHO, 2011). This is particularly the case as the exposure/context of IPV may be further complicated by societal crises such as natural disasters and pandemics, where the threat of violence and its health consequences may be heightened (Yehuda et al, 2008). Objectives: The objectives of this dissertation were to address the knowledge gaps pertaining to perinatal IPV and violence experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. It had three specialist articles, two of which were reviews of the literature, and one was a population-based empirical study. The objectives of the dissertation were as follows: 1) To explore uni- and bi-directional IPV prevalence estimates and associated factors during the perinatal period (Paper I) (Mojahed et al, 2021a); 2) To investigate a broader range of pre- pandemic contexts of social and geographical isolation and their associations with IPV, as well as to provide reliable, preliminary knowledge of their potential impact during the COVID- 19 pandemic (Paper II) (Mojahed et al, 2021b; 3) To explore the 12-month prevalence of psychological, physical, and sexual IPV within an existing cohort, which consists of women and men, as well as to detect any possible changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in the experienced IPV behaviors as opposed to pre-pandemic times (Paper III) (Mojahed et al, 2023); 4) To explore factors that could prospectively predict IPV victimization (Paper III). Materials and Methods: Paper I involved a qualitative synthesis of the literature. Due to the heterogeneity of prevalence studies and varying violence definitions, quantitative analyses were not feasible for this review. The paper investigated prevalence estimates of perinatal IPV among intimate partners and explored associated factors. Information such as author, year of publication, recruitment setting, study design, sample size, directionality of IPV, prevalence estimates, and types of violence were extracted and tabulated. The integrative ecological model was used to consider population characteristics and (gender-based) associated factors relevant to IPV prevalence. Paper II was a rapid review conducted following Cochrane guidelines to address the urgency of studying IPV in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The review focused on the correlation between social and geographical isolation and IPV. Paper III utilized data from the population-based longitudinal study DREAMCORONA. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the prevalence of IPV victimization among women and men, examining changes during the pandemic. Pearson correlation analyses and multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted to identify associations and potential predictors of IPV. The results were presented as odds ratios with confidence intervals. Results: In Paper I, several key findings were reported. Psychological uni-directional IPV against female partners was most prevalent during pregnancy. Studies comparing IPV prevalence before and after childbirth showed mixed results, with some reporting a decrease and others reporting an increase in IPV after birth. Risk factors at the individual, family, community, and societal levels were identified, including socioeconomic status, substance use, insufficient prenatal care utilization, low self-esteem, unplanned pregnancy, lack of support, and certain social and ethnic identities. Paper II found that lack of social support increased the risk of IPV victimization, and the compounding effect of social and geographical isolation heightened this risk. It also revealed that social isolation correlated with physical and sexual IPV among female drug users and predicted various forms of IPV among immigrant women. In Paper III, it was found that around 50% of women and 40% of men experienced some form of IPV in the last 12 months. Psychological aggression was the most prevalent form of violence reported. The majority of women and men reported no change in victimization by psychological and physical violence during the pandemic. On the other hand, about a quarter of (expectant) mothers (27%) and fathers (22-24%) reported an increase in psychological and physical IPV. With regard to sexual violence, neither mothers nor fathers reported any changes during the pandemic. Higher partnership satisfaction reduced the likelihood of IPV victimization, while symptoms of anger-hostility increased this probability. Conclusions: Considering the burden of perinatal IPV and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV, this dissertation highlights the urgent need for effective preventive interventions. The findings suggest the importance of initiating antenatal care and delivering in clinical settings, as these factors were associated with a lower risk of perinatal IPV. Routine screening for IPV in obstetric care is crucial, and healthcare providers should be aware of the elevated risk for mental health distress among perinatal partners exposed to IPV. As experiences of IPV remained largely unchanged during the pandemic, there is a strong recommendation to strengthen and improve access to support services. Alternative support measures such as messenger services and telemedicine should be accessible and reliable for victims of severe IPV who may face increased isolation. Raising awareness about IPV is essential for individuals in informal and formal sectors, as well as family and friends within the immediate social network of those at risk. The findings also support the use of programs targeting adverse interaction patterns, particularly psychological aggression. Future research should focus on associated factors of IPV during the peripartum period and other critical life phases or societal events. It is crucial to adopt ecological and intersectional perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of IPV. Furthermore, including the perspective of the other partner in IPV research can provide valuable context for better prevention and intervention strategies

Preferences and Barriers to Counseling for and Treatment of Intimate Partner Violence, Depression, Anxiety, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Postpartum Women: Study Protocol of the Cross-Sectional Study INVITE

The cross-sectional study INVITE (INtimate partner VIolence care and Treatment prEferences in postpartum women) aims to examine treatment and counseling preferences and barriers in relation to the experience of intimate partner violence (IPV), depression and anxiety, and (childbirth-related) posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among postpartum women in Dresden, Germany. Currently, the INVITE study consists of an interim sample of N = 1,787 participants with n = 891 completed interviews. Recruitment is ongoing, targeting a community sample of at least N = 4,000 women who complete various quantitative questionnaires via telephone interviews at 3–4 months postpartum. The differences in rates of IPV, postpartum depression and anxiety, and/or (childbirth-related) PTSD as well as treatment and counseling preferences and barriers between affected and non-affected women will be assessed. Further, predisposing variables, past and present stress exposure, enabling resources, as well as past and present health will be examined as predictors of service preferences and barriers. In this study protocol, the theoretical background, methods, as well as preliminary results regarding sociodemographic characteristics and birth-related factors of the interim sample are presented and discussed in terms of their socio-political relevance. Simultaneously assessing IPV, postpartum depression and anxiety, and (childbirth-related) PTSD will facilitate exploring comorbidities and concomitant special needs of affected women. Results of the INVITE study will therefore set the ground for well-aimed development and improvement of treatment and counseling services for the respective target groups by informing health care professionals and policy makers about specific preferences and barriers to treatment. This will yield the possibility to tailor services to the needs of postpartum women

Changes in Prevalence and Severity of Domestic Violence During the COVID-19 Pandemic:A Systematic Review

Background: To contain the spread of COVID-19, governmental measures were implemented in many countries. Initial evidence suggests that women and men experience increased anger and aggression during COVID-19 lockdowns. Not surprisingly, media reports and initial empirical evidence highlight an increased risk for domestic violence (DV) during the pandemic. Nonetheless, a systematic review of studies utilizing participants' reports of potential changes in DV prevalence and severity during the pandemic as compared to pre-pandemic times is needed.Objective: To examine empirical, peer-reviewed studies, pertaining to the potential change in prevalence and severity of different types of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic, as reported by study participants.Data Sources: Electronic EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL searches were conducted for the period between 2020 and January 5, 2022. References of eligible studies were integrated by using a snowballing technique.Study Selection: A total of 22 primary, empirical, peer-reviewed studies published in English or German were included.Results: Of the 22 studies, 19 were cross-sectional whereas 3 included both pre-pandemic and during pandemic assessments. Data synthesis indicates that severity of all types of DV as well as the prevalence of psychological/emotional and sexual DV increased for a significant number of victims in the general population during the pandemic. Evidence for changes in prevalence regarding economic/financial, physical, and overall DV remains inconclusive. There was considerable between-study variation in reported prevalence depending on region, sample size, assessment time, and measure.Conclusions: Data synthesis partly supports the previously documented increase in DV. Governmental measures should consider the availability of easily accessible, anonymous resources. Awareness and knowledge regarding DV need to be distributed to improve resources and clinical interventions

Experiences of intimate partner violence among partners during the perinatal period and the COVID-19 pandemic

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is not only considered a serious public health issue and a cause of human suffering (National Center for Injury Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015), IPV can be a barrier to utilization of care in vital life phases (Bonomi et al, 2009; Snow Jones, Dienemann, & Schollenberger, 2006), and a determinant of many serious negative health outcomes for affected individuals and their families (Silverman et al, 2020). As a significant contributor to health, social, and economic disparities, violence jeopardizes the fabric of families and transcends all levels of socioeconomic status (Rhodes, 2012). Among those who suffer serious to fatal consequences as a direct result of IPV, the perinatal period has only recently received special attention in research and is extremely scarce (WHO, 2011). This is particularly the case as the exposure/context of IPV may be further complicated by societal crises such as natural disasters and pandemics, where the threat of violence and its health consequences may be heightened (Yehuda et al, 2008). Objectives: The objectives of this dissertation were to address the knowledge gaps pertaining to perinatal IPV and violence experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. It had three specialist articles, two of which were reviews of the literature, and one was a population-based empirical study. The objectives of the dissertation were as follows: 1) To explore uni- and bi-directional IPV prevalence estimates and associated factors during the perinatal period (Paper I) (Mojahed et al, 2021a); 2) To investigate a broader range of pre- pandemic contexts of social and geographical isolation and their associations with IPV, as well as to provide reliable, preliminary knowledge of their potential impact during the COVID- 19 pandemic (Paper II) (Mojahed et al, 2021b; 3) To explore the 12-month prevalence of psychological, physical, and sexual IPV within an existing cohort, which consists of women and men, as well as to detect any possible changes during the COVID-19 pandemic in the experienced IPV behaviors as opposed to pre-pandemic times (Paper III) (Mojahed et al, 2023); 4) To explore factors that could prospectively predict IPV victimization (Paper III). Materials and Methods: Paper I involved a qualitative synthesis of the literature. Due to the heterogeneity of prevalence studies and varying violence definitions, quantitative analyses were not feasible for this review. The paper investigated prevalence estimates of perinatal IPV among intimate partners and explored associated factors. Information such as author, year of publication, recruitment setting, study design, sample size, directionality of IPV, prevalence estimates, and types of violence were extracted and tabulated. The integrative ecological model was used to consider population characteristics and (gender-based) associated factors relevant to IPV prevalence. Paper II was a rapid review conducted following Cochrane guidelines to address the urgency of studying IPV in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The review focused on the correlation between social and geographical isolation and IPV. Paper III utilized data from the population-based longitudinal study DREAMCORONA. Descriptive analyses were performed to determine the prevalence of IPV victimization among women and men, examining changes during the pandemic. Pearson correlation analyses and multiple logistic regression analysis were conducted to identify associations and potential predictors of IPV. The results were presented as odds ratios with confidence intervals. Results: In Paper I, several key findings were reported. Psychological uni-directional IPV against female partners was most prevalent during pregnancy. Studies comparing IPV prevalence before and after childbirth showed mixed results, with some reporting a decrease and others reporting an increase in IPV after birth. Risk factors at the individual, family, community, and societal levels were identified, including socioeconomic status, substance use, insufficient prenatal care utilization, low self-esteem, unplanned pregnancy, lack of support, and certain social and ethnic identities. Paper II found that lack of social support increased the risk of IPV victimization, and the compounding effect of social and geographical isolation heightened this risk. It also revealed that social isolation correlated with physical and sexual IPV among female drug users and predicted various forms of IPV among immigrant women. In Paper III, it was found that around 50% of women and 40% of men experienced some form of IPV in the last 12 months. Psychological aggression was the most prevalent form of violence reported. The majority of women and men reported no change in victimization by psychological and physical violence during the pandemic. On the other hand, about a quarter of (expectant) mothers (27%) and fathers (22-24%) reported an increase in psychological and physical IPV. With regard to sexual violence, neither mothers nor fathers reported any changes during the pandemic. Higher partnership satisfaction reduced the likelihood of IPV victimization, while symptoms of anger-hostility increased this probability. Conclusions: Considering the burden of perinatal IPV and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV, this dissertation highlights the urgent need for effective preventive interventions. The findings suggest the importance of initiating antenatal care and delivering in clinical settings, as these factors were associated with a lower risk of perinatal IPV. Routine screening for IPV in obstetric care is crucial, and healthcare providers should be aware of the elevated risk for mental health distress among perinatal partners exposed to IPV. As experiences of IPV remained largely unchanged during the pandemic, there is a strong recommendation to strengthen and improve access to support services. Alternative support measures such as messenger services and telemedicine should be accessible and reliable for victims of severe IPV who may face increased isolation. Raising awareness about IPV is essential for individuals in informal and formal sectors, as well as family and friends within the immediate social network of those at risk. The findings also support the use of programs targeting adverse interaction patterns, particularly psychological aggression. Future research should focus on associated factors of IPV during the peripartum period and other critical life phases or societal events. It is crucial to adopt ecological and intersectional perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of IPV. Furthermore, including the perspective of the other partner in IPV research can provide valuable context for better prevention and intervention strategies

Rapid Review on the Associations of Social and Geographical Isolation and Intimate Partner Violence: Implications for the Ongoing COVID-19 Pandemic

While the COVID-19 pandemic forced millions of people to stay home and minimize their social contacts, newspaper reports worldwide raised concerns as they reported an increasing rate of intimate partner violence (IPV). One link of the measures enforced to control the pandemic to IPV might be a possible side effect of those measures, namely social and geographical isolation. As there was no scientific data investigating the association of IPV and social and geographical isolation in the context of epidemics or pandemics at the time of conducting this rapid review, we aimed at investigating a broader range of contexts of social as well as geographical isolation and its association with IPV to draw conclusions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (core collection). A research strategy was developed and observational studies were included if they considered men and/or women, estimates of social and geographical isolation, and IPV as a primary outcome. Of the 526 identified studies, 11 were included in this review. The included studies involved 15,695 women and were conducted in the USA, Sweden, Ethiopia, Egypt, Spain, and Turkey. Indicators of social isolation such as lack of social, emotional, or informational support or the frequency and quality of social contacts were narratively assessed. Geographical isolation was primarily assessed by physical distance to the next town or support service. Both social and geographic isolation were found to be associated with an increased risk of IPV. Recommendations made by the individual studies include the following: (a) improving access to social networks outside the victims’ own group, (b) improving their economic circumstances, (c) asserting the responsibility for those in contact with the victims, and (d) increasing the focus on access to preventive services and programs need to be taken into account. Therefore, considering the particular infrastructure and legislation of the countries affected by the pandemic, policies need to ensure constant access to shelters and other help services and increase awareness for IPV in the society. In addition, future studies are warranted to assess prevalence rates and risk factors of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Keywords: intimate partner violence, social isolation, geographical isolation, association, COVID-19, pandemic, rapid revie

Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the population-based study DREAMCORONA.

ObjectivesThis study examines the 12-month prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, including psychological, physical, and sexual forms, in women and men. It also aims to identify changes in IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore factors associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization during this period.MethodsData from the DREAMCORONA study in Germany collected from May 2020 to February 2021 included 737 participants, i.e., (expectant) mothers (64%) and fathers (36%). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2S) short form was used to assess the 12-month IPV victimization. Prevalence of IPV victimization as well as changes in IPV victimization during the pandemic were analyzed descriptively, with results stratified by sex. Multiple logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for IPV.ResultsPsychological IPV was found to be the most prevalent form of violence, with the occurrence of any psychological IPV affecting 48.5% of women and 39.4% of men, while 2.6% of women and 3.3% of men reported the occurrence of any physical IPV victimization, and 2.8% of women and 1.5% of men reported the occurrence of any sexual IPV victimization. Of those who experienced the occurrence of any IPV in the last 12 months, 89.7% of women and 89.8% of men were victimized by one single act of violence. The majority of affected participants reported no change in psychological and physical IPV victimization during the pandemic. Nevertheless, for certain IPV behaviors on the psychological and physical IPV victimization subscales, both affected women and men also reported higher frequencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple logistic regression revealed that higher levels of relationship satisfaction were negatively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization for women and men, whereas greater levels of own anger-hostility symptoms were positively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization.ConclusionsPsychological IPV was present in almost every second (expectant) couple. The majority of affected women and men reported no change in their psychological and physical IPV victimization, suggesting that they continued to experience IPV during the pandemic. This underlines the importance of promoting healthier relationship dynamics, coping strategies, and emotional well-being to reduce the risk of IPV, even in times of crisis. Our study sheds light on the early stages of the pandemic and highlights the ongoing need for research into the temporal dynamics of IPV