A cross-sectional study identifying the pattern of factors related to psychological intimate partner violence exposure in Slovenian family practice attendees: what hurt them the most.

Polona Selic,Nena Kopcavar Gucek,Igor Svab

doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-223

Polona Selic, Nena Kopcavar Gucek + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-223

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is yet to be fully acknowledged as a public health problem in Slovenia. This study aimed to explore the health and other patient characteristics associated with psychological IPV exposure and gender-related specificity in family clinic attendees.MethodsIn a multi-centre cross-sectional study, 960 family practice attendees aged 18 years and above were recruited. In 689 interviews with currently- or previously-partnered patients, the short form of A Domestic Violence Exposure Questionnaire and additional questions about behavioural patterns of exposure to psychological abuse in the past year were given. General practitioners (GPs) reviewed the medical charts of 470 patients who met the IPV exposure criteria. The Domestic Violence Exposure Medical Chart Check List was used, collecting data on the patients’ lives and physical, sexual and reproductive, and psychological health status, as well as sick leave, hospitalisation, visits to family practices and referrals to other clinical specialists in the past year. In multivariate logistic regression modelling the factors associated with past year psychological IPV exposure were identified, with P < 0.05 set as the level of statistical significance.ResultsOf the participants (n = 470), 12.1% (n = 57) were exposed to psychological IPV in the previous year (46 women and 11 men). They expressed more complaints regarding sexual and reproductive (p = 0.011), and psychological and behavioural status (p <0.001), in the year prior to the survey. Unemployment or working part-time, a college degree, an intimate relationship of six years or more and a history of disputes in the intimate relationship, increased the odds of psychological IPV exposure in the sample, explaining 41% of the variance. In females, unemployment and a history of disputes in the intimate relationship explained 43% of the variance.ConclusionsThe prevalence of psychological IPV above 10% during the past year was similar to earlier studies in Slovenia, although the predominance of better-educated people might be associated with lower tolerance toward psychological abuse. GPs should pay special attention to unemployed patients and those complaining about family disputes, to increase early detection.

Highlights

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is yet to be fully acknowledged as a public health problem in Slovenia
The reported prevalence in Slovenia [2,3,4], as well as a growing body of research on health consequences related to IPV [5,6,7,8,9,10,11] and its impact on morbidity and mortality [5], all suggest a gradual change from IPV being seen as a personal and family issue related to the legal and justice system, to an issue that needs to be acknowledged and addressed as a public health problem
This study aims to explore the differences between patients who were exposed to psychological IPV in the previous year and those who were not; to identify the health consequences and other patient characteristics associated with this type of IPV exposure; and to examine whether there were any gender-related issues in family clinic attendees

Summary

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is yet to be fully acknowledged as a public health problem in Slovenia. The reported prevalence in Slovenia [2,3,4], as well as a growing body of research on health consequences related to IPV [5,6,7,8,9,10,11] and its impact on morbidity and mortality [5], all suggest a gradual change from IPV being seen as a personal and family issue related to the legal and justice system, to an issue that needs to be acknowledged and addressed as a public health problem. Women were significantly more likely than men to experience and report physical or sexual IPV and abuse of power and control, but less likely than men to report verbal abuse alone. For both men and women, being a victim of physical IPV was associated with increased risk of current poor health. Abuse of power and control was found to be more strongly associated with adverse health consequences than verbal abuse, and psychological violence was shown to be more damaging to overall health status than physical abuse [14]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion