Problems in Reporting Sexual Violence Prevalence

Abstract

In their article, Peterman et al. use Demographic Health Survey (DHS) data to estimate rates of rape in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).1 Measuring and reporting on sexual violence (SV) in crisis-affected populations has well-known challenges,2–4 and survivors of SV are not limited to women of reproductive age.5,6 In March 2010, we assessed the prevalence of all forms of SV in a population-based cluster survey of adults in eastern DRC territories of South Kivu, North Kivu, and Ituri.5 Our data covered the 1994–2010 time period. Peterman et al. used data from the 2007 DHS, a population-based cluster sample of all DRC provinces, which contains a number of limitations in determining SV prevalence (e.g., a limited numbers of questions on SV and a lack of clear distinction between rape and other forms of SV). Although they exist for the purpose of SV research, standardized definitions, measurement modalities, and ethical standards are not always used, thus making comparisons difficult.7,8 This photograph by Steffi Graham dates from 1999 during the height of what was then called the “garden preservation crisis,” when New York City policy favored auctioning off community gardens and in some rare cases, converting them to the jurisdiction of the New York City Department of Parks & Recreation or selling them to The Trust for Public Land and the New York Restoration Project. Printed with permission. Peterman et al. provide important insight into higher rates of rape in the conflict-affected eastern provinces among women aged 15 to 49 years in 2006 to 2007. Our study—limited to the Kivus and Ituri—also found significant rates of SV among women and men of all ages (not included in the 2007 DHS study). To calculate a comparison, we had to assume an equal yearly rate of SV among women (> 18 years) and men while using standard definitions and including all forms of SV. Over the last 16 years in the Kivus and Ituri, 38 per 1000 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 25.63, 50.89) women (> 18 years) experienced SV and 13 per 1000 (95% CI = 9.28, 17.47) men experienced SV. However, the prevalence of SV varies by year and province. (These data were derived from a secondary analysis not yet published.) Despite recent attempts at surveying men, the DHS needs to be revised to reflect current evidence-based work that documents SV and includes women older than 49 years as well as men of any age. Everyone, whether male or female, is at risk for SV and should have equal access to documentation of ills. Whatever the prevalence, SV is a horrific public health and human rights problem. Survivors deserve responses informed by sound data and analyses such as those included in Peterman et al. and our study. It is unfortunate that policy and programmatic responses to SV are often based on sensational, misinformed, and irresponsible advocacy and media reporting. Researchers, advocates, and the media should work together to ensure sound research findings are reported responsibly and contribute to evidence-based responses.