intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of ... · violence during pregnancy is more...

© 2010 ReproduAll righ

Reproductive Health M0968-8080/10PII: S0968-8www.rhm-elsevier.com

15

ctive Health Matters.ts reserved.atters 2010;18(36):158–170$ – see front matter080 (10 ) 36533-5 www.rhmjournal.org.uk

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis ofprevalence data from 19 countries

Karen M Devries,a Sunita Kishor,b Holly Johnson,c Heidi Stöckl,d Loraine J Bacchus,e

Claudia Garcia-Moreno,f Charlotte Wattsg

8

a Lecturer, Gender, Violence and Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London UK.E-mail: [email protected]

b Senior Gender Advisor, Measure DHS, ICF Macro, Calverton MD, USAc Associate Professor, Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, Canadad Research Fellow, Gender, Violence and Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and TropicalMedicine, London UK

e Lecturer, Gender, Violence and Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London UKf Coordinator, Gender, Rights, Sexual Health and Adolescence, Department of Reproductive Health andResearch, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland

g Professor, Gender, Violence and Health Centre, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London UK

Abstract: We aimed to describe the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancyacross 19 countries, and examine trends across age groups and UN regions. We conducted asecondary analysis of data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (20 surveys from 15 countries)and the International Violence Against Women Surveys (4 surveys from 4 countries) carried outbetween 1998 and 2007. Our data suggest that intimate partner violence during a pregnancy is acommon experience. The prevalence of IPV during pregnancy ranged from approximately 2.0%in Australia, Cambodia, Denmark and the Philippines to 13.5% in Uganda among ever-pregnant,ever-partnered women; half of the surveys estimated prevalence to be between 3.9 and 8.7%.Prevalence appeared to be higher in African and Latin American countries relative to the Europeanand Asian countries surveyed. In most settings, prevalence was relatively constant in the younger agegroups (age 15–35), and then appeared to decline very slightly after age 35. Intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy is more common than some maternal health conditions routinelyscreened for in antenatal care. Global initiatives to reduce maternal mortality and improve maternalhealth must devote increased attention to violence against women, particularly violence duringpregnancy. ©2010 Reproductive Health Matters. All rights reserved.

Keywords: intimate partner violence, pregnancy, maternal health

INTIMATE partner violence (IPV) is the mostcommon form of violence against womenworldwide.1–4 It can occur during both preg-

nancy and the perinatal period, and is increas-ingly being recognised as an important riskfactor for adverse health outcomes for bothmother and newborn. Established direct healtheffects of physical intimate partner violenceduring pregnancy include increased likelihoodof miscarriage,5 premature labour or delivery,6

low birthweight,7,8 higher levels of depressionduring and after pregnancy9 and injury.10 Indi-rect health effects include substance abuse,11

delay in seeking antenatal care,12 insufficientweight gain during pregnancy13 and reducedlevels of breastfeeding.14

Knowing the prevalence of intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy is the first step inhelping to inform the development and imple-mentation of interventions to prevent and treat

mailto:[email protected]

KM Devries et al / Reproductive Health Matters 2010;18(36):158–170

sequelae. Antenatal care provides a potentiallyimportant window of opportunity for identifyingwomen experiencing violence during pregnancy.For many women in low resource settings, thiswill be their only point of contact with healthcare providers. Ideally, women will be seen fourtimes during a pregnancy and once post-partum,and the possibility of follow-up therefore offersan ideal setting for addressing issues of abuse.Providing support on a repeated basis can poten-tially help women reduce their risk of violence andits consequences, as has been demonstrated inintervention studies in theUSA13 andHongKong.14

Comparable population-based data on theprevalence of intimate partner violence duringpregnancy are lacking. Available estimates varywidely, from about 3%15 to 30%,1,16–18 Moststudies on prevalence have come from smallclinical samples in maternity wards,16 whichoften serve particular patient groups and com-munities, such as immigrant or minority groups,19

rural communities,20 adolescents,21 and womenfrom affluent areas.22 A number of other studiesinclude participants from rural and urban areas ofthe USA,23 Canada,24 Peru,25 Mexico,17 Rwanda,26

Nigeria,27 Saudi Arabia,28 Iran,16 as well as fromIndia,29 Pakistan,30 UK,15 and New Zealand.31

Studies vary greatly in respect to the surveymethods employed, which include face-to-face,telephone, computer-based and questionnaireinterviews, which may affect response rates.23,32

A large number of studies have based their mea-surement of violence during pregnancy on non-validated assessment tools, and differ with respectto the range of potential perpetrators included.Some studies ask about violence inflicted duringpregnancy by any perpetrator,24,30 while othersfocus solely on asking about violence by inti-mate partners.31 Other factors which differ acrossresearch studies include the time periods explored;for example, some focus on intimate partner vio-lence in any pregnancy,31 some on the last preg-nancy,23 others in the previous year amongpregnant women,26 or at different time pointsduring the pregnancy.15,33 Additionally, data onthe prevalence of intimate partner violence dur-ing pregnancy are often presented separatelyfrom data on other forms of intimate partnerviolence, making it difficult to discern if patternsare distinct.While these studies have been useful for put-

ting intimate partner violence during pregnancy

on the public health policy agenda in theirrespective countries, there remains a need forpopulation-based data using validated andstandardized measures of intimate partner vio-lence during pregnancy.

MethodsTo find out the prevalence of intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy, we conducted a sec-ondary analysis and examined trends by ageand region of cross-sectional household datafrom the Demographic and Health Surveys(DHS, 20 surveys in 15 countries) and the Inter-national Violence against Women Surveys(IVAWS, 4 surveys in 4 countries), which coverfour global regions between 1998 and 2007.Survey information is outlined in Table 1.

DHS characteristicsThe Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) arecarried out at approximately five-year intervalsin a range of mainly low- and middle-incomecountries.34 These surveys use largely standard-ized questionnaires and methodologies andcover a range of topics, including demographics;reproductive, maternal and child health; sexualbehaviour and nutrition. In-country organiza-tions (usually National Statistical offices) areresponsible for implementing the surveys, withtechnical assistance from Macro Internationaland major funding from the US Agency for Inter-national Development (USAID). In the late 1990s,a standardized module of questions on domesticviolence was developed; it has since been addedto the DHS in 27 countries. Twenty surveys in15 of these countries provide information on theprevalence of violence during pregnancy.

SamplingThe surveys are administered to eligible indi-viduals in nationally representative samples ofhouseholds in each country. Sample selectionis multi-stage, with census enumeration areasselected in the first stage with probability pro-portional to size. Households are selected ran-domly from a completed listing of householdswithin the selected enumeration areas. Allwomen aged 15–49 in sample households areeligible to be interviewed.35 The domestic violencemodule is typically administered in a sub-sampleof selected households, to one randomly selected

159


eligible woman per household, in accordancewith World Health Organization (WHO) ethicaland safety guidelines.35,36 Homeless womenand those living in shelters or institutions areexcluded in all countries.

Interviewer trainingInterviewers receive several weeks of rigoroustraining for administering the DHS survey; incountries where the domestic violence module

160

is fielded, interviewers receive additional train-ing on linkages between gender, violence andhealth; building rapport with the respondent;ensuring privacy and what to do when privacyis not possible or is interrupted; and providinginformation on sources of assistance. In theDHS, women are interviewed only by women.

IVAWS characteristicsThe International Violence Against WomenSurvey (IVAWS) is a single-round survey whichhas been completed in nine countries. The IVAWSproject is co-ordinated internationally by theEuropean Institute for Crime Prevention andControl, with inputs from the United NationsOffice on Drug and Crime, United Nations Inter-regional Crime and Justice Research Institute,and Statistics Canada. It has been conductedby independent investigators in each country,and each country participates on a self-fundedbasis. In contrast to the DHS, these surveys arespecifically designed to measure the prevalenceof intimate partner and other forms of violenceagainst women. All nine surveys included ques-tions on violence during pregnancy and fourcontained sufficient additional information topermit estimates to be made of the prevalenceof intimate partner violence among womenwith children.

SamplingTelephone surveys were conducted by randomdigit-dialling or sampling from telephone direc-tories. Face-to-face surveys were conducted bytwo-stage cluster sampling: the first stage wasthe selection of cities or provinces; the secondstage was the selection of districts within thesecities or provinces. Households were selectedusing a random walk method. All women aged18–69 years were eligible for inclusion; onlyone woman per household was selected inaccordance with the ethical principles identifiedby WHO36 and Johnson et al.4 In householdswith more than one eligible woman, the womanwith the next birthday was selected to partici-pate. Surveys were conducted either face-to-faceor by telephone, a decision that was left to projectcoordinators in each country. In some countries,therefore, results do not reflect the experiencesof women in households without landlines orwomen with mobile phones only. Homeless


women and those living in shelters or institu-tions were excluded in all countries.

Interviewer trainingNational coordinators from each country attendeda group session to discuss issues related to surveyimplementation, including interviewer trainingand sensitization. In each country, female inter-viewers were selected based on their having someawareness about violence against women, andwere provided with additional standardizedtraining regarding the effects of violence againstwomen, common myths about violence, ways toencourage honest disclosure of relevant experi-ences, and the importance of providing emo-tional support to women disclosing violence byreferring them to local agencies.4

Definitions of violence and partnership statusThe definitions of violence and partnership usedin the DHS and IVAWS are outlined in Tables 2and 3; items constituting severe abuse are starred.In the DHS, women who have ever been preg-nant are asked whether they have ever beenhit, slapped, kicked or physically hurt by anyone,and if yes, who that person was. Women arecounted as having experienced intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy if the person perpe-trating the violence was a current or past hus-band or cohabiting partner. In IVAWS, womenwho reported experiencing any form of physical

and/or sexual intimate partner violence werethen asked if any of these acts had ever occurredwhile they were pregnant.

Statistical analysisThe prevalence of each form of intimate part-ner violence was calculated separately for eachsurvey and country. DHS estimates are weightedto adjust for non-response, selection of onewoman per household and to achieve nationalrepresentativeness. Standard errors for DHS esti-mates are corrected for the complex samplingschemes employed (calculated using Taylorlinearization). IVAWS estimates are weightedaccording to the age profiles provided by theUN Statistical Division for the year of the surveyto adjust for bias due to non-response.The prevalence of intimate partner violence

during pregnancy in IVAWS could not be cal-culated directly, as the surveys did not collectinformation on the number of ever-pregnantwomen in their samples. To create estimates, weused information within the survey on whetheror not a woman had children residing in thehousehold as a proxy for ever-pregnancy. Thisexcluded women with no living children andthose whose children were no longer residing inthe household.In this paper, we present descriptive data on

the prevalence of intimate partner violence duringpregnancy, and compare this with prevalence of

161


other forms of intimate partner violence (Table 4).The overall prevalence of intimate partner vio-lence during pregnancy is then summarised bysurvey and UN region (Figure 1). To examine agepatterns, we calculated pooled estimates of preva-lence and standard error of intimate partner vio-lence during pregnancy for each age group foreach region. We used a random effects inversevariance meta-analysis, which weights individualstudy estimates according to their precision. Weplotted these mean prevalence figures by agegroup and region (Figure 2). Finally, to examinechanges in the prevalence of physical intimatepartner violence during pregnancy by age groupover time, we plotted age-specific prevalence bysurvey year for four countries which had a DHS

162

conducted in more than one year (Figure 3). Ana-lyses were conducted using STATA 11.0.

ResultsThe prevalence of intimate partner violenceduring pregnancy among ever-pregnant womenranged from approximately 2% in Australia,Denmark, Cambodia and Philippines to 13.5%among ever-pregnant women in Uganda (Table 4,Figure 1). Over half of the surveys had a preva-lence estimate between 3.8 and 8.8%. Prevalenceappeared to be higher in the African and LatinAmerican countries relative to the European andAsian countries surveyed, although estimateswithin regions (and countries)were highly variable.


The prevalence of lifetime intimate partnerviolence ranged from 10.7% in the Philippinesto 64.4% in the Democratic Republic of Congo(DRC) (Table 4). Prevalence of past year intimatepartner violence ranged from just over 1% inDenmark to 63.0% in the DRC. Severe intimatepartner violence over the woman's lifetime rangedfrom 5.0% in Azerbaijan to 39.5% in Uganda.Although the data on lifetime, past year andsevere intimate partner violence have slightlydifferent denominators to data on intimate part-

ner violence during pregnancy, they suggest thatintimate partner violence during pregnancyoccurs at lower levels than lifetime and past-year intimate partner violence. In almost allsettings, intimate partner violence during preg-nancy also occurs at lower levels than lifetimesevere intimate partner violence. The only excep-tion to these patterns was Denmark, where inti-mate partner violence during pregnancy wasmore common than severe intimate partner vio-lence and past-year violence.

163


However, countries with a high prevalence oflifetime severe intimate partner violence do notnecessarily also report a proportionately highprevalence of intimate partner violence duringpregnancy. Azerbaijan had among the lowestprevalence of lifetime severe intimate partnerviolence (5.0%), but nearly the same prevalenceof intimate partner violence during pregnancy(4.0%). Conversely, Uganda, DRC andMozambiquehad among the highest prevalences of severe inti-mate partner violence (39.5%, 38.1%, and 34.0%,respectively), but lower levels of intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy (13.5%, 9.4%, and7.3%, respectively).The age-specific patterns of having ever expe-

rienced intimate partner violence during preg-

164

nancy appear to follow roughly similar patternsacross surveys in all settings (Figure 2). Despite thepossibility that older women would have moretime to potentially be exposed to violence duringpregnancy, in nearly all settings the prevalencewas relatively constant in the younger age groups(age 15–35), and then declined very slightly inboth the African and Latin American countriesin the oldest age groups (age 35 and up), althoughestimates vary somewhat within groups.Cambodia, Colombia, Dominican Republic

and Haiti had more than one DHS in differentyears. In these studies, 95% confidence inter-vals are overlapping, indicating no statisticallysignificant temporal changes in the levels ofviolence over time within specific age groups(Figure 3). The only exception is Colombia, wherethe data suggest a trend towards lower preva-lence in all age groups in the 2005 versus the2000 survey.

DiscussionThis is the first analysis of internationally com-parable data on the population prevalence ofintimate partner violence during pregnancy.Our data suggest that intimate partner violenceduring a pregnancy is a common experience.However, prevalence varies considerably withinand between global regions. Data on age trendsshow fairly consistent age patterns across regions,with a relatively constant prevalence acrossyounger age groups (up to around age 35) and aslight decline after age 35.Our data show that prevalence of intimate

partner violence during pregnancy remains rela-tively constant until about age 35, which sug-gests that in many settings, the violence occursin a first or early pregnancy. The decline inreported violence during pregnancy in older agegroups may be due to recall bias – youngerwomen are probably less prone to recall biasbecause they are more likely to have experiencedintimate partner violence in the past year2 and tohave been recently pregnant relative to womenin older age groups.However, we cannot rule out the possibility

that these age patterns are the result of a cohorteffect, where women born in earlier years had alower risk of intimate partner violence duringpregnancy. Although our analysis of age patternsover different survey years within countries did


not reveal any clear changes in prevalence withinage groups Figure 3), it may be that opposing fer-tility trends affect prevalence. In many countries,age at first pregnancy is increasing; thus womenwho do begin childbearing at young ages mayrepresent a more socio-economically disadvan-taged group who have a higher risk of intimatepartner violence. Fertility is also declining inmany countries and women are having firstpregnancies at later ages; thus exposure to vio-lence in pregnancy will happen at an older agebecause pregnancy happens at older ages, rela-tive to previous surveys.The prevalence figures for intimate partner

violence during pregnancy presented here aregenerally comparable to those found in the lit-erature, including the WHO Multi-Country StudyonWomen's Health andDomestic Violence against

Women, another internationally comparativepopulation-based survey. In the WHO survey,the levels of violence during pregnancy amongever-pregnant women were highest in ruralPeru (27.6%), rural Tanzania (12.3%), and ruralBangladesh (12.4%), and lowest in Japan (1.2%),Serbia (3.4%), and rural and urban Thailand (3.8%and 4.2%, respectively).1 These WHO data sug-gest differences between rural and urban settingsin several countries, although not always in aconsistent direction.We found that countries reporting high levels

of severe intimate partner violence did not neces-sarily also report high levels of intimate partnerviolence during pregnancy, suggesting that cul-tural factors may be important determinants ofthe prevalence of intimate partner violence duringpregnancy. These could include differences in

165


attitudes about wife-beating, egalitarianism inmale–female relationships, and male partnerbeliefs in the centrality of the wife–mother rolefor women.18

Several previous studies have found thatviolence may be more likely during a first preg-nancy, because the stress of transition to par-enthood can trigger intimate partner violenceduring pregnancy,37 and because young preg-nant women may be less emotionally readyfor pregnancy and more economically depen-dent on their partners.38 Other work indicatesthat violence during pregnancy may simply bea continuation of pre-existing intimate part-ner violence. The United States Pregnancy RiskAssessment Monitoring System Study indicatesthat for most US women, violence decreasesduring pregnancy, but for some women it con-tinues or becomes more severe.39 However, inthe WHO study in Brazil, Ethiopia and Serbia,

166

women indicated that intimate partner violencestarted during pregnancy.1

Strengths and limitationsAlthough the DHS and IVAWS are interna-tionally comparable, in practice, there are slightmethodological variations between the indi-vidual surveys, which may limit comparability.For IVAWS, the number of ever-pregnant womenwas estimated using a proxy variable which cap-tured the number of women with children residingin the household. This is likely to have under-counted the number of ever-pregnant women,thus slightly inflating the prevalence estimates,especially for older women. Response rates werevery high for the DHS and IVAWS in most low-and middle-income settings, however the IVAWsurveys conducted in higher income settings hadlower response rates. Although this is typicalof surveys conducted in high-income settings


and telephone surveys, this limits their popula-tion representativeness.Our estimates include women who may not

have attended antenatal care, which is a keylimitation of prevalence studies conducted inantenatal clinics in lower income settings. Inthe least developed countries, one in three womendo not receive any antenatal care.40 Further, inthe WHO study, women in rural Ethiopia, ruralBangladesh and rural Tanzania who had experi-enced intimate partner violence were significantlyless likely to have attended for antenatal care.1

All survey data rely on women's reports abouttheir experiences of violence, and so may be sub-ject to recall and response bias. Despite extensiveinterviewer training and efforts to ensure privacyfor respondents in both IVAWS and DHS, womenstill may not have felt able to disclose experiencesof violence during pregnancy; thus, the figurespresented are likely to be underestimates.41

Although this research provides importantinformation about the global prevalence of inti-mate partner violence during pregnancy, it also

Encuentro con Amor, workshops for younon domestic violence, C

has limited detail about the contexts in whichviolence occurs. For example, the surveys did notcollect detailed information about which preg-nancy violence occurred in – yet the findings froma study on violence during pregnancy in Tanzaniafound that most violence occurred during onepregnancy only.42 Similarly, the DHS asked onlyabout physical violence during pregnancy, whileIVAWS asked about physical and sexual violence.Detailed information about the impact of emo-tional violence is not available, although differenttypes of intimate partner violence can have dif-ferent health consequences for women.43

Implications and conclusionsOur data suggest that violence during preg-nancy is more common than several recognizedmaternal health conditions for which it is currentpractice to screen during antenatal care. Thisincludes pre-eclampsia, which complicates 2–8%of pregnancies globally,44,45 and gestational dia-betes, which has between 1–5% prevalence in

g people by Médécins sans Frontièresali, Colombia, 1998

PAULFUSC

O/M

AGNUM

PHOTOS

167


the UK and USA.46 Both of these conditions arepotentially fatal if left untreated.45 Although theextent of maternal mortality, miscarriage andstillbirth associated with intimate partner vio-lence during pregnancy remains unknown, inti-mate partner violence is a leading cause of deathamong adult women in the USA47 and is asso-ciated with maternal mortality in the UK.48 Abuseduring pregnancy is also associated with kidneyinfections, suboptimal weight gain, and havinglower birthweight babies.49

Antenatal care offers a window of opportu-nity, but more research is needed, in particularto assess the feasibility and effectiveness of inter-ventions that can be integrated into antenatalcare in resource-poor settings.44 Expansion ofantenatal care services, and/or alternate modesof intervention to reach women in low-incomesettings who do not attend antenatal care, arealso crucial.

168

Women are not immune from violence duringpregnancy. Given the prevalence of intimate part-ner violence during pregnancy and its potentialimpact on maternal and newborn health, it isimportant that global initiatives to reduce mater-nal mortality and morbidity and improve mater-nal health devote increased attention to violenceagainst women, particularly during pregnancy.More research needs to be undertaken, usingcomparable methodologies, to both assess themagnitude and nature of the problem and to testpotential interventions that can be implementedin resource-poor settings.

AcknowledgementsWe acknowledge USAID for supporting analysisof DHS data through the MEASURE DHS con-tract GPO-C-00-08-00008-00, and Datla V Rajuand Trina Forrester for conducting data analysispatiently and meticulously.

References
1. García-Moreno C, Jansen HA,
Ellsberg M, et al. WHO Multi-Country Study on Women'sHealth and Domestic Violenceagainst Women: initial resultson prevalence, health outcomesand women's responses.Geneva: World HealthOrganization; 2005.

2. Kishor S, Johnson K. Profilingdomestic violence: amulti-country study. CalvertonMD: ORC Macro; 2004.

3. Jewkes R. Intimate partnerviolence: causes andprevention. Lancet 2002;359(9315):1423–29.

4. Johnson H, Ollus N, Nevala S.Violence against Women:An International Perspective.New York: Springer; 2007.

5. Taft AJ, Watson LF. Terminationof pregnancy: associations withpartner violence and otherfactors in a national cohort ofyoung Australian women.Australian and New ZealandJournal of Public Health 2007;31(2):135–42.

6. Rodrigues T, Rocha L, Barros H.Physical abuse duringpregnancy and preterm delivery.

American Journal of Obstetricsand Gynecology 2008;198(2):171.e1–e6.

7. Valladares E, Ellsberg M, Pena R,et al. Physical partner abuseduring pregnancy: a risk factorfor low birth weight inNicaragua.Obstetrics and Gynecology 2002;100(4):700–05.

8. Murphy CC, Schei B, Myhr TL,et al. Abuse: a risk factor forlow birth weight? A systematicreview and meta-analysis.Canadian Medical AssociationJournal 2001;164(11):1567–72.

9. Martin SL, Li Y, Casanueva C,Harris-Britt A, et al. Intimatepartner violence and women'sdepression before and duringpregnancy. Violence againstWomen 2006;12(3):221–39.

10. El Kady D, Gilbert WM, Xing G,et al. Maternal and neonataloutcomes of assaults duringpregnancy. Obstetrics andGynecology 2005;105(2):357–63.

11. Curry MA. The interrelationshipsbetween abuse, substance use,and psychosocial stress duringpregnancy. Journal of Obstetric,Gynecologic, and NeonatalNursing 1998;27(6):692–99.

12. Dietz PM, Gazmararian JA,Goodwin MM, et al. Delayedentry into prenatal care: effect ofphysical violence. Obstetrics andGynecology 1997;90(2):221–24.

13. Moraes CL, Amorim AR,Reichenheim ME. Gestationalweight gain differentials in thepresence of intimate partnerviolence. International Journalof Gynecology and Obstetrics2006;95(3):254–60.

14. Lau Y, Chan KS. Influence ofintimate partner violence duringpregnancy and early postpartumdepressive symptoms onbreastfeeding among Chinesewomen in Hong Kong. Journalof Midwifery and Women'sHealth 2007;52(2):15–20.

15. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S.Domestic violence: prevalencein pregnant women andassociations with physical andpsychological health. EuropeanJournal of Obstetrics andGynecology and ReproductiveBiology 2004;113(1):6–11.

16. Salari Z, Nakhaee N. Identifyingtypes of domestic violence andits associated risk factors in apregnant population in Kerman


hospitals, Iran Republic.Asia-Pacific Journal of PublicHealth 2008;20(1):49–55.

17. Castro R, Peek-Asa C, Ruiz A.Violence against women inMexico: a study of abuse beforeand during pregnancy.American Journal of PublicHealth 2003;93(7):1110–16.

18. Campbell J, Garcia-Moreno C,Sharps P. Abuse during pregnancyin industrialized and developingcountries. Violence againstWomen 2004;10(7):770–89.

19. Sagrestano LM, Carrol D,Rodriguez AC, et al.Demographic, psychological,and relationship factors indomestic violence duringpregnancy in a sample oflow-income women of color.Psychology of WomenQuarterly 2004;28(4):309–22.

20. Bailey BA, Daugherty RA.Intimate partner violence duringpregnancy: incidence andassociated health behaviorsin a rural population. MaternalChild Health Journal 2007;11(5):495–503.

21. Wiemann CM, Agurcia CA,Berenson AB, et al. Pregnantadolescents: experiences andbehaviors associated withphysical assault by an intimatepartner. Maternal and ChildHealth Journal 2000;4(2):93–101.

22. Yost NP, Bloom SL, McIntireDD, et al. A prospectiveobservational study of domesticviolence during pregnancy.Obstetrics and Gynecology2005;106(1):61–65.

23. Goodwin MM, Gazmararian JA,Johnson CH, et al. Pregnancyintendedness and physical abusearound the time of pregnancy:findings from the pregnancy riskassessment monitoring system,1996–1997. Maternal ChildHealth Journal. [PRAMSWorking Group. Pregnancy RiskAssessment Monitoring System]2000;4(2):85–92.

24. Muhajarine N, D'Arcy C.Physical abuse during

pregnancy: prevalence andrisk factors. Canadian MedicalAssociation Journal 1999;160(7):1007–11.

25. Perales MT, Cripe SM, Lam N,et al. Prevalence, types, andpattern of intimate partnerviolence among pregnant womenin Lima, Peru. Violence againstWomen 2009;15(2):224–50.

26. Ntaganira J, Muula AS, MasaisaF, et al. Intimate partnerviolence among pregnantwomen in Rwanda. BMCWomen's Health 2008;8(1).

27. Umeora OUJ, Dimejesi BI,Ejikeme BN, et al. Pattern anddeterminants of domesticviolence among prenatal clinicattendees in a referral centre,South-east Nigeria. Journal ofObstetrics and Gynaecology2008;28(8):769–74.

28. Rachana C, Suraiya K, HishamAS, et al. Prevalence andcomplications of physicalviolence during pregnancy.European Journal of Obstetricsand Gynecology andReproductive Biology 2002;103(1):26–29.

29. Peedicayil A, Sadowski LS,Jeyaseelan L, et al. Spousalphysical violence against womenduring pregnancy. British Journalof Obstetrics and Gynaecology2004;111(7):682–87.

30. Karmaliani R, Irfan F, Bann CM,et al. Domestic violence prior toand during pregnancy amongPakistani women. ActaObstetricia et GynecologicaScandinavica 2008;87(11):1194–01.

31. Fanslow J, Silva M, Robinson E,et al. Violence duringpregnancy: associations withpregnancy intendedness,pregnancy-related care, andalcohol and tobacco useamong a representativesample of New Zealandwomen. Australian andNew Zealand Journal ofObstetrics and Gynaecology2008;48:398–404.

32. Canterino JC, VanHorn LG,

Harrigan JT, et al. Domestic abusein pregnancy: a comparison of aself-completed domestic abusequestionnaire with a directedinterview. American Journal ofObstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(5):1049–51.

33. Moraes CL, Reichenheim ME.Domestic violence duringpregnancy in Rio de Janeiro,Brazil. International Journal ofGynecology and Obstetrics2002;79(3):269–77.

34. MEASURE DHS. DHSOverview: ICF Macro; 2010.At: <www.measuredhs.com/aboutsurveys/dhs/start.cfm>.

35. MEASURE DHS. Ethical andSafety Guidelines forImplementing the DHSDomestic Violence Module. nd.At: <www.measuredhs.com/topics/gender/pdfs/ethical_guidelines.pdf>.

36. World Health Organization.Putting women first: ethical andsafety recommendations forresearch on domestic violenceagainst women. Geneva: WHODepartment of Gender andWomen's Health; 2001.

37. UNICEF. State of the World'sChildren, 2009. New York:UNICEF; 2009.

38. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S.A qualitative exploration of thenature of domestic violence inpregnancy. Violence againstWoman 2006;12(6):588–604.

39. Lau Y. Does pregnancy provideimmunity from intimate partnerabuse amongHongKong Chinesewomen? Social Science andMedicine 2005;61(2):365–77.

40. Saltzman LE, Johnson CH,Gilbert BC, et al. Physical abusearound the time of pregnancy:an examination of prevalenceand risk factors in 16 states.Maternal Child Health Journal2003;7(1):31–43.

41. Ellsberg M, Heise L. Bearingwitness: ethics in domesticviolence research.Lancet 2002;359(9317):1599–1604. [doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08521-5].

169

http://www.measuredhs.com/aboutsurveys/dhs/start.cfm

http://www.measuredhs.com/aboutsurveys/dhs/start.cfm

http://www.measuredhs.com/topics/gender/pdfs/ethical_guidelines.pdf




42. Stöckl H, Watts C, KilonzoMbwambo JK. Physical violenceby a partner during pregnancyin Tanzania: prevalence andrisk factors. RHM 2010;18(36):171–80.

43. Pico-Alfonso MA, Garcia-Linares MI, Celda-NavarroBlasco-Ros C, et al. The impactof physical, psychological andsexual intimate male partnerviolence on women's mentalhealth: depressive symptoms,post-traumatic stress disorder,state anxiety and suicide.Journal of Women's Health2006;15(5):599–611.

44. Duley L. The global impact of

RésuméNous souhaitions décrire la préviolence exercée sur les femmesun partenaire intime dans 19 payles tendances par groupes d'âgeNations Unies. Nous avons menésecondairedesdonnéesd'enquêtes déet sanitaires (20enquêtesdans15payinternationales sur la violence fait(quatre enquêtes dans quatre pays)1998 et 2007. Nos données indviolence du partenaire intime pendaest fréquente. Sa prévalence allait den Australie, au Cambodge, au DanPhilippines à 13,5% enOuganda parayant déjà été enceintes et ayanpartenaire ; la moitié des enquêcette prévalence entre 3,9 et 8,7%.semblait plus élevée dans les payd'Amérique latine que dans les pet d'Asie ayant fait l'objet des enqplupart des pays, la prévalence étaconstante dans les groupes d'âge l(15–35 ans) et semblait décliner traprès 35 ans. La violence du parpendant la grossesse est plus fcertaines conditions de santé matel'objet d'un dépistage systématiconsultations prénatales. Les initiatpour réduire la mortalité maternella santé maternelle doivent consacd'attention à la violence faite auparticulier pendant la grossesse.

170

pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.Seminars in Perinatology 2009;33:130–37.

45. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L,et al. WHO analysis of causes ofmaternal death: a systematicreview. Lancet 2006;367:1066–74.

46. Bentley-Lewis R. Gestationaldiabetes mellitus: anopportunity of a lifetime[Comment]. Lancet 2009;373:378–79.

47. Greenfield LA, Rand MR,Craven D. Analysis of data oncrimes by current or formerspouses, boyfriends, andgirlfriends. Violence by

valence de laenceintes pars, et examineret régions desune analysemographiquess)etd'enquêtese aux femmesréalisées entreiquent que lant la grossesse'environ 2,0%emark et auxmi les femmest déjà eu untes estimaientLa prévalences d'Afrique etays d'Europeuêtes. Dans lait relativementes plus jeunesès légèrementtenaire intimeréquente quernelle qui fontque dans lesivesmondialesle et améliorerrer davantagex femmes, en

ResumenNos propusimoviolencia de paembarazo en 19en diferentes gONU. Realizamosde las Encuest(20 encuestas dInternacionales s(4 encuestas de 42007. Nuestrosde pareja íntimexperiencia comdurante el embarCamboya, DinaUganda entre mque alguna vezencuestas calcula8.7%. La prevapaíses africanoscon los países euEn la mayoría dera relativamenjóvenes (de 15muy poco despuviolencia de pares más común qmaterna para lodetección sistemáLas iniciativas itasa de mortalidmaterna debenviolencia contraviolencia durant

Intimates. Washington DC:US Dept of Justice; 1998.

48. Lewis G, editor. ConfidentialEnquiry into Maternal andChild Health. Saving Mothers'Lives: reviewing maternaldeaths to make motherhoodsafer, 2003–2005. SeventhReport on ConfidentialEnquiries into Maternal Deathsin the United Kingdom. London:CEMACH; 2007.

49. Boy A, Salihu HM. Intimatepartner violence and birthoutcomes: a systematic review.International Journal ofFertility and Women's Medicine2004;49(4):159–64.

s describir la prevalencia dereja íntima (VPI) durante elpaíses y examinar las tendenciasrupos etarios y regiones de laun análisis de datos secundariosas Demográficas y de Salude 15 países) y de las Encuestasobre Violencia contra lasMujerespaíses) realizadas entre 1998 y

datos indican que la violenciaa durante el embarazo es unaún. La prevalencia de la VPIazo varió de un 2.0%enAustralia,marca y Filipinas al 13.5% enujeres alguna vez embarazadas,tuvieron pareja; la mitad de lasron una prevalencia del 3.9% allencia pareció ser más alta eny latinoamericanos comparadaropeos y asiáticos encuestados.e los entornos, la prevalenciate constante en los grupos mása 35 años) y pareció disminuirés de los 35 años de edad. Laeja íntima durante el embarazoue algunos problemas de saluds cuales se hacen pruebas deticadurante la atenciónantenatal.nternacionales por disminuir laad materna y mejorar la saluddedicar mayor atención a lalas mujeres, particularmente lae el embarazo.

intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of ... · violence during pregnancy is more...

Documents