Homecoming: Repatriating Public Engaged Research on Access to Justice in Colombia

Children Witnessing Domestic and Family Violence: A Widespread Occurrence during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic

Prelims

Global understandings of domestic violence

BackgroundThis study examines the global evolution of the laws addressing domestic violence (DV), providing insights on the number and types of laws adopted by countries around the world since early 1980s. It highlights disparities in law adoption across different regions and countries with varying levels of economic development.MethodsThe empirical analysis is based on data from Women, Business and the Law (WBL), covering 190 economies annually from 1980 to 2024. The study introduces a distinction between laws related to DV based on legal source, distinguishing between DV laws, gender-based violence (GBV) laws, family violence laws, and criminal code. The study then presents a systematic descriptive analysis of cross-country DV laws and their association with the intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence.ResultsThere is a significant negative correlation between the presence of DV laws and the prevalence of IPV. The study finds that the type of law that regulates DV matters. Specifically, DV laws and criminal codes are more strongly associated with lower IPV prevalence. The number of laws regulating DV is also related to IPV prevalence. Additionally, the study reveals regional disparities in the adoption of laws, with higher-income countries adopting laws earlier than lower-income regions.ConclusionThe presence and types of DV laws matter significantly for IPV prevalence. Comprehensive legal frameworks are vital in effectively mitigating DV.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-025-24489-z.

BackgroundApproximately 164 million women report an unmet need for family planning globally. This has far-reaching consequences for the health of women and their children. Women’s exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) is strongly linked to increased unmet need as IPV likely affects both women’s desire for contraception and their ability to access it. Around 245 million women were subject to physical and/or sexual IPV by an intimate partner in the past twelve months alone, making it the most common form of violence against women. Yet, laws that prohibit domestic violence (DV) are not universal and countries actively debate whether legal provisions are effective in deterring and reducing its harmful impacts. This study examines the impact of DV laws on women’s unmet need for family planning.MethodsWe built new data on DV laws adoption in Africa and used the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) data collected between 2000 and 2021 across 23 African countries for outcomes data. Exploiting the staggered adoption of DV laws across the continent, we used a difference-in-differences study design to estimate the impact of DV laws in the treated countries compared to countries without such laws.ResultsWe find that DV laws reduced women’s unmet need for family planning by 6.2% points, 95% CI [− 9.2, − 3.2], a 20.5% reduction from the mean. Positive impacts were observed in 6 countries across multiple model specifications. While the impacts were largely broad-based across wealth, age, geography, and education categories, we found no significant impacts for women younger than 20 years of age and those without formal education. These findings were robust to alternative model specifications.ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate that countries can significantly benefit from prohibiting DV as a fundamental step towards addressing women’s unmet need for family planning and promoting their reproductive health. While fully addressing IPV and women's unmet need may require a range of complementary interventions, especially among marginalized populations, DV laws play a crucial role in improving women's control over their reproductive health.

Intimate Partner Violence

Domestic Violence and Safe Storage of Firearms in the COVID-19 Era.

Introduction: Domestic violence (DV) rates in smaller cities have been reported to be some of the highest in Canada. It is highly likely that emergency department staff will come across victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in their daily practice. Elsewhere we have found low rates of IPV documentation as well as underutilization of current tools in the ED. The purpose of this study is to describe ED staff awareness and knowledge surrounding IPV, currently accepted screening questions, and available screening tools. Methods: To assess awareness and knowledge, a cross-sectional online survey was distributed to ED staff (LPNs, NPs, Physicians, Residents, RNs) via staff email lists three times between July and October 2016, with a response rate of 45.9% (n=55). The primary outcomes were correct identification of appropriate IPV questions. Secondary outcomes included awareness of screening tools (HITS, WAST, PVS, AAS), whose role it is to question patients, and whether or not formal training has been received. Results: When asked to identify recommended questions for asking about IPV, staff were more likely to choose screening questions (75.3%; 95% CI 69.3% to 80.6%) compared to questions that are not recommended (23.8%; 95% CI 19.4% to 30.7%). However, 87.3% of respondents were not aware of current screening tools. 49.1% believed that all patients with typical injuries (ex. facial injury), should have further questioning about IPV, 20% believed that all patients with any injury, and 16.4% believed that all patients should be questioned about IPV. 89.1% also felt that it is both the physician and nurse’s role to question patients about IPV. Finally, 81.8% of ED staff did not receive any formal training on domestic or intimate partner violence. Conclusion: The present study indicates that there may be a gap in education surrounding this high risk condition as seen by the lack of knowledge surrounding current tools, lack of consensus on who should be questioned, and lack of training. Therefore, introduction of a knowledge translation piece may be beneficial to both ED physicians and nurses.

The World Health Organization [1] has defined violence as “the intentional use of physical force, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development or deprivation’’ [1]. According to the WHO [1] typology of violence, there are mainly three types, such as, self-directed, interpersonal, and collective violence; these types are further divided into subtypes [1]. The current study focused on interpersonal (intimate partner or domestic) violence against married men. The Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) can be defined as the physical, psychological, or sexual harm by current/previous partner or spouse; domestic violence is used interchangeably with IPVs [2]. Violence against women is extensively studied in different parts of the western world and Asian countries; however, very few of the researchers have paid attention towards violence against men [3,4]; Hines et al. [5] it is commonly claimed that men are traditionally viewed as being physically stronger than women, therefore, they under-report their victimization due to barriers like embarrassment and masculine ego [6]. The fact that men are victims of IPV, from their female partners, has been identified for the last thirty years [5]; these victims often face the humiliation of being laughed at, accused, belittled, or ridiculed, due to which they do not report their victimization [6]. Studies have identified equal levels of exposure to intimate partner violence among men and women [7]; the rates and frequencies of violence enacted by women are often similar to that of their men partners [8]. Such symmetry signifies a weak association of gender with perpetration of IPV. However, men’s ego has been developed by the society in such a way that their reporting of violence is generally considered a social stigma. When men attempt to report DV against them, most of the times they are not trusted; instead, they are laughed at and ridiculed for the notion that they are beaten by their wives

One hotly debated topic within the field of intimate partner violence (IPV) is the degree to which IPV can be understood as primarily a unidirectional versus bidirectional phenomena; this topic forms a key component of the gender symmetry versus asymmetry of domestic violence debate. Resolution of this controversy has important prevention and intervention implications. In the current study, a comprehensive review of the literature was conducted, and 48 studies that reported rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional physical violence (male-to-female and female-to-male) were uncovered using a variety of search engines and key terms; one relevant meta-analysis and one seminal book chapter were also identified. Included empirical studies were published in 1990 or later, appeared in peer-reviewed journals, and contained empirical data directly related to bidirectionality of violence. Studies that only reported correlations between self-reported perpetration and victimization were excluded from these analyses. Qualifying studies were then categorized by the nature of the sample they assessed (i.e., large population samples; smaller community; purposive or convenience samples; clinical or treatment-seeking samples; legal/criminal justice-related samples; and samples assessing the relationships of gay, lesbian, and/or bisexual individuals). Rates of bidirectional versus unidirectional violence (male-toward-female vs. female-toward-male) were summarized directly as reported or were derived on the basis of data contained within the article.All obtained studies (48 empirical, 1 meta-analysis, 1 book chapter) were then entered into an online summary table for public review; however, additional results were specifically calculated for the current article. These results indicate that bidirectional violence was common across all types of samples (population-based to criminal justice). This suggests that the role of women in violent relationships is important to consider, even if all aspects of women’s perpetration of IPV are not symmetrical to men’s perpetration of IPV. A second finding to emerge was that the ratio of unidirectional female-to-male compared to male-to-female IPV differed significantly among samples with higher rates of female-perpetrated unidirectional violence found in four of the five sample types considered. Higher ratios of male-to-female unidirectional violence were found only in criminal justice/legal studies that relied on police reports of IPV perpetration and/or in samples drawn from the U.S. military. Competing explanations for the differing ratios were offered in the current discussion. These need to be tested empirically in order to fully understand the expression of IPV across samples and settings. Differences in the directionality of the expression of IPV were not found in samples of gay, lesbian, or bisexual individuals; however, rates of bidirectional violence appear to vary by race/ethnicity with higher rates of bidirectional violence among Black couples. Overall, it is suggested that if one resolution of the gender symmetry/asymmetry debate is to argue that there are subtypes of male and female domestic violence perpetrators (Johnson, 2005; Johnson, 2006), or that there are different patterns of violence among different types of relationships characterized by IPV (Stets & Straus, 1989), researchers and clinicians will need to work together to determine how to reliably and meaningfully make these determinations in ways that will facilitate our ability to effectively prevent and treat all types of IPV.

We investigate the effects of Domestic Violence (DV) laws in Pakistan on violence against women. Using both survey data and crime reports, and exploiting the introduction of the laws across different provinces over time, we show that the new laws had little to no effect on DV or femicides in Punjab and Sindh, while they led to an increase in both in Balochistan. The effect in Balochistan is driven by ethnic groups with more conservative attitudes towards DV and divorce. Our findings show that the introduction of laws that conflict with prevailing social norms may risk backfiring. • We study the impact of the introduction of domestic violence (DV) laws across Pakistan’s provinces. • The laws led to a reduction in prevalence of severe forms of reported DV in Sindh and Punjab and of femicides in Punjab. • In Balochistan, the introduction of the DV law led to an increase in both self-reported physical violence and femicides. • The rise of DV in Balochistan was stronger among women from ethnic groups with more conservative norms. • Findings suggest that laws that conflict with prevailing social norms may backfire.

The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID‐19 on domestic violence

Importance of the Topic The orthopaedic surgeon's role in the identification and care of patients experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) has gained considerable interest in the surgical community during the last few years. With the publication of the Prevalence of Abuse and Intimate Partner Violence Surgical Evaluation (PRAISE) study [9] that determined the global prevalence of IPV in orthopaedic clinics, and a series of subsequent studies specifically focusing on IPV in orthopaedic settings [7, 11, 12], orthopaedic surgeons are becoming aware that IPV affects a staggeringly large number of the women whom they treat. One in six women in fracture clinics has experienced IPV in the past year and one in 50 women present to fracture clinics with IPV-related injuries [9]. More than one in four women (28%) in IPV-therapy programs who have experienced abuse have musculoskeletal injuries requiring medical attention [2]. Since 45% of women who are killed by their intimate partner present to emergency departments within 2 years before their death [10], physicians and orthopaedic surgeons have an important opportunity to prevent further injuries and death for their patients. In recent years, a number of IPV screening and assistance programs have been implemented and tested in medical settings. These screening programs typically aim to ask every woman presenting for treatment a set of standardized questions to elicit disclosure of IPV. Assistance programs take this concept one step further by processes of referral, advocacy, or counseling once patients disclose IPV in order to reduce the health, social, economic and/or psychological consequences of IPV. Despite the availability of published randomized trials, recommendations about screening for IPV from health organizations have been conflicting [8, 13] and the value of screening is highly debated [4]. This Cochrane review evaluated the efficacy of screening programs for IPV in clinical settings. Based on evidence from 13 randomized trials (14,959 women) the authors concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend screening all women for IPV in clinical settings. It should be noted that the review did not evaluate IPV screening programs that also included a counseling, advocacy, or social services intervention. It should also be noted that, although domestic violence can affect men and women and is harmful to all persons affected, the review focuses only on interventions directed at women who have experienced IPV. Upon Closer Inspection While IPV screening programs demonstrated a considerable improvement in IPV identification, there were no major differences in referring patients to social services or counselling. The review also evaluated reduction of IPV, physical health, psychosocial health, and resource use. The authors were unable to pool these outcomes, but none showed significant differences between groups in individual trials. The authors concluded that these IPV screening programs that focus on identification of patients who have experienced IPV only are ineffective. Although this meta-analysis was thorough and of high quality, identification and referral rates, the focus of the study, are not patient-important outcomes. Studies that evaluate the effects of patient-important outcomes such as physical and mental health outcomes would be more valuable in reporting efficacy of IPV interventions. Indeed, there was little data on outcomes that could be classified as patient-important. Additionally, patients in these studies were only asked about IPV once. It is important to ask patients about IPV multiple times during the course of their care, since patients may need to establish a relationship with the healthcare professional before they feel ready to disclose [12]. This is part of the reason that orthopaedic surgeons have an advantage compared to emergency physicians when it comes to discussing IPV with patients. It should also be noted that no trials were conducted in an orthopaedic setting (the PRAISE study was not interventional), so applicability to orthopaedic clinics is unclear. Further research is recommended evaluating interventions specifically for orthopaedic settings. Take-home Messages The conclusion from the authors that screening is ineffective does not mean that healthcare professionals should abandon the idea of identifying and helping patients who have experienced IPV. In fact, these findings highlight the fact that screening alone does not necessarily lead to improvements in any meaningful outcomes for patients, and perhaps a more rigorous “active” intervention is warranted. Trials evaluating IPV identification paired with referral or counselling services, which were not included in this review, demonstrate a positive impact on the lives of patients who have experienced IPV [5, 6]. We recommend that IPV interventions go beyond identification alone, and are evaluated based on patient-important outcomes such as reduction in IPV frequency and/or severity, or IPV-related health outcomes that directly impact a patient's health and well-being. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and other orthopaedic organizations have position statements that encourage orthopaedic surgeons to become familiar with IPV and their role in caring for abused women [1, 3]. Personnel in orthopaedic clinics can do five simple things to help the women whom they treat who may be experiencing IPV, even without establishing a formal screening and intervention program [1]. Be aware that IPV affects about one in six of the women whom you treat. If you feel comfortable asking your patients about IPV, here is a suggested method: “Because violence is so common in many women's lives, and because there is help available for women being abused, I now ask every patient about domestic violence.” Follow with three validated questions: (1) Have you been hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt by someone in the past year? (2) Do you feel safe in your current relationship? (3) Is there a partner from a previous relationship who is making you feel unsafe now? [3]. If a patient discloses IPV, be supportive and validate her disclosure; tell her that the abuse is not her fault. Become familiar with local resources, including hospital/clinic social services and community-based resources. For example, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE) in the United States or visit sheltersafe.ca in Canada. If reporting is not mandatory in your jurisdiction and no children are at risk, always ensure that you have the patient's permission to contact outside services like police or shelters.

Highlights the expansion of interpersonal violence as a global issue that encompasses physical, sexual, or psychological violence used by an individual or small group of individuals. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) account for 91.4 percent of 2011 deaths from interpersonal violence. Household surveys provide the bulk of the data on violence against children and youth as well as against women and the elderly. Serious and enduring consequences from such violence include increased risks of injuries, infectious diseases, mental health problems, reproductive health problems, and noncommunicable diseases. Public health interventions aim to prevent violence from occurring, and specific prevention programs fall into seven categories: (1) developing safe, stable parent-child relationships; (2) developing life skills in children and adolescents; (3) reducing availability and harmful use of alcohol; (4) decreasing access to lethal means; (5) promoting gender equality; (6) changing cultural and societal norms; and (7) implementing victim identification, care, and support programs.

This research empirically explores the pattern and prevalence of officer-involved domestic violence associated with the enforcement of the currently amended Law to Combat Domestic Violence in Mongolia. After a thematic analysis of seven semi-structured interviews with service providers in Mongolian national human rights and non-government organizations, three main themes emerged regarding the relationship between officer-involved domestic violence and the legal enforcement processes of criminalizing domestic violence: (a) officer-involved domestic violence is more prevalent than domestic violence committed by the general population in Mongolia, (b) law enforcement poorly implements the domestic violence law, and (c) officer-involved domestic violence is an intersectional issue exemplifying one of the biggest oppressions to deal with. I argue the bidirectional nature of this relationship: Not only do law enforcement officers’ attitudes contribute to the poor implementation of domestic violence law, but police supervisors contribute to the unsuccessful criminalization of domestic violence by justifying their intimate partner violence under the name of police reputation, maintaining a code of silence in the militarized police culture, and weakening the criminal justice system.