ORIGINAL ARTICLE
\nDomestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review
\nof Prevalence Studies
\nSamia Alhabib & Ula Nur & Roger Jones
\nPublished online: 15 December 2009
\n# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
\nAbstract To systematically review the worldwide evidence
\non the prevalence of domestic violence against women, to
\nevaluate the quality of studies, and to account for variation
\nin prevalence between studies, using consistent definitions
\nand explicit, rigorous methods. Systematic review of
\nprevalence studies on domestic violence against women.
\nLiterature searches of 6 databases were undertaken for the
\nperiod 1995 to 2006. Medline, Embase, Cinahl, ASSIA,
\nISI, and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences
\nwere searched, supplemented by hand searching of the
\nreference lists from studies retrieved and specialized
\ninterdisciplinary journals on violence. A total of 134 studies
\nin English on the prevalence of domestic violence against
\nwomen, including women aged 18 to 65 years, but
\nexcluding women with specific disabilities or diseases,
\ncontaining primary, empirical research data, were included
\nin the systematic review. Studies were scored on eight predetermined
\ncriteria and stratified according to the total
\nquality score. The majority of the sudies were conducted in
\nNorth America (41%), followed by Europe (20%). 56% of
\nstudies were population-based, and 17% were carried out
\neither in primary or community health care settings. There
\nwas considerable heterogeneity both between and within
\ngeographical locations, health care settings, and study
\nquality The prevalence of lifetime domestic violence varies
\nfrom 1.9% in Washington, US, to 70% in Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers) Latinas
\nin Southeast US. Only 12% scored a maximum of 8 on
\nour quality criteria, with 27% studies scored 7, and 17%
\nscored 6. The mean lifetime prevalence of all types of
\nviolence was found to be highest in studies conducted in
\npsychiatric and obstetric\/gynecology clinics. Results of this
\nreview emphasize that violence against women has reached
\nepidemic proportions in many societies. Accurate measurement
\nof the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic
\nand further culturally sensitive research is required to
\ndevelop more effective preventive policies and programs.
\nKeywords Domestic violence .Women . Prevalence .
\nReview
\nIntroduction
\nViolence against women includes all verbal, physical, and
\nsexual assaults which violate a woman\u2019s physical body,
\nsense of self and sense of trust, regardless of age, race,
\nethinicity, or country (Campbell 1995). Violence against
\nwomen has been identified as a major public health and
\nhuman rights issue (Joachim 2000), and has been estimated
\nby the World Health Organization (WHO) to account for
\nbetween 5\u201320% of healthy years of life lost in women aged
\n15 to 44 (WHO 1997).
\nTwenty years ago, violence against women was not
\nconsidered an issue worthy of international attention or
\nconcern. This began to change in the 1980s, as women\u2019s
\ngroups were organized locally and internationally to
\nS. Alhabib (*)
\nAcademic Unit of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol,
\n25 Belgrave Road,
\nBristol BS8 2AA, UK
\ne-mail: samia.alhabib@bristol.ac.uk
\nU. Nur
\nCancer Statistics-Cancer Research UK,
\nLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine,
\nLondon, UK
\nR. Jones
\nDepartment of General Practice & Primary Care,
\nKing\u2019s College London,
\nLondon, UK
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nDOI 10.1007\/s10896-009-9298-4
\ndemand attention to the physical, psychological, and
\neconomic abuse of women. Gradually, violence against
\nwomen has come to be recognized as a legitimate human
\nrights issue and a significant threat to women\u2019s health and
\nwell being (Ellsberg and Heise 2005). The process began in
\nEurope and North America, but even in the United States,
\nwhere this trend was most apparent, it took 20 years for
\nrising awareness to lead to legislation and to potentially
\neffective preventive measures. Only in the early 1990s were
\ncomprehensive laws enforced and effective resources
\nallocated to deal with gender violence (Gelles 1997).
\nWorldwide, domestic violence is as serious a cause of
\ndeath and incapacity among women aged 15\u201349 years as
\ncancer, and a greater cause of ill health than traffic
\naccidents and malaria combined (The World Bank 1993).
\nIn addition to causing injury, violence increases women\u2019s
\nlong-term risks of a number of other health problems,
\nincluding chronic pain, physical disability, drug and alcohol
\nabuse, and depression (Heise et al. 1999). Secondary to the
\nbiopsychosocial effects of battering are the high costs of
\nsuch violence. Abused women have more than double the
\nnumber of medical visits, an 8-fold greater mental healthcare
\nusage, and an increased hospitalization rate compared
\nto non-abused women (Wisner et al. 1999). The WHO
\nmulti-country study on women\u2019s health and domestic
\nviolence has recently confirmed significant associations
\nbetween lifetime experiences of partner violence and self
\nreported poor health (Ellsberg et al. 2008).
\nPrevalence studies of violence against women report
\nwide variations in levels of violence within and between
\nhealth care settings. The reported lifetime prevalence of
\nphysical or sexual violence, or both, varied from 15% to
\n71% among the countries studied in the WHO multi-country
\nstudy (Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006). Few studies have used
\nstandard methods to derive comparative prevalence figures.
\nThe World-Safe initiative represents a successful model that
\nhas been used in five countries (Brazil, Chile, Egypt,
\nPhilippines, and India) to study intimate partner violence
\nagainst women and children (Sadowski et al. 2004). The
\nWHO multi-country study uses another model, which has
\nbeen applied in 10 different countries. While confirming that
\nphysical and sexual partner violence against women is
\nwidespread, the variation in prevalence within and between
\nstudy settings emphasizes that this violence is not inevitable,
\nand needs to be addressed.
\nOver the last 10 years, a number of prevalence surveys on
\nintimate partner violence has been published from around
\nthe world. However, despite a number of initiatives, such as
\nthe European Network on Conflict, Gender, and Violence, the
\nlaunching of a European Society of Criminology and efforts to
\ndevelop an international survey on violence against women
\n(Hagemann-White 2001), information from these studies has
\nnot been systematically collated and analyzed. The aim of
\nthis systematic review is to systematically summarize the
\nworldwide evidence on the prevalence of domestic violence
\nagainst women, to evaluate the quality of studies, and to try
\nto account for variation in prevalence rates between studies.
\nMethods
\nLiterature Searches
\nParallel literature searches of 6 databases (Medline, Embase,
\nCinahl, ASSIA, ISI, and International Bibliography of the
\nSocial sciences) were undertaken for the period1995\u20132006.
\nThe reference lists from retrieved studies and specilaized
\ninterdisciplinary journals in violence (Violence Against
\nWomen, Journal of Interpersonal Violence) were hand
\nsearched to look for further studies that might not have
\nbeen retrieved by the database searches. Authors of
\nunpublished studies, e.g., PhD theses, were contacted to
\nobtain copies of their studies. We contacted experts in the
\nfield before and during the process to obtain feedback and
\nadvice with regard to methodology and analysis. All
\ncitations were exported into Reference Manager software
\n(version 11). Searches included MeSH and text words terms,
\nwith combinations AND OR Boolean operator (Box 1).
\nBox 1: words used in the search
\n1. Domestic violence. 13. Frequency.
\n2. Spouse abuse. 14. Prevalenc$.tw.
\n3. Battered women. 15. Incidenc$.tw.
\n4. Partner abuse. 16. Propotion$.tw.
\n5. Domestic violence.tw. 17. Frequenc$.tw.
\n6. Spouse abuse.tw. 18. 10 or 11 or 12 or 13 or 14
\nor 15 or 16 or17.
\n7. Battered women.tw. 19. Women.
\n8. Partner abuse.tw. 20. Wom#n.tw.
\n9. 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
\nor 7 or 8.
\n21. 19 or 20.
\n10. Prevalence. 22. 9 and 18 and 21.
\n11. Incidence. 23. Limit 22 to \u201call adult
\n(19 plus years)\u201d
\n12. Proportion. 24. Limit 23 to female.
\nWe included studies on the prevalence of domestic
\nviolence against women conducted between 1995 and
\n2006, published in English and including women aged
\nbetween 18 and 65 years. We excluded studies on women
\nwith special disabilities or certain complicated diseases e.g.,
\nHIV, women in places of refuge, case reports, reviews, and
\nnon-English studies. We also excluded studies conducted
\non women aged >65 years and on violence against pregnant
\n370 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nwomen, where a large number of studies was found, which
\npossibly merit a separate review.
\nOur searches identified 1,653 primary studies, which
\nwere reduced to 356 after screening the titles and abstracts
\nto assess whether the contents were likely to be within the
\nscope of the review. We also checked for duplicates
\nbetween databases, accounting for 180 (10.9%) of the total
\nstudies. A further 176 studies were excluded because they
\nwere largely naratives about domestic violence cases,
\nstudies of risk factors rather than prevalence or were
\npredominately review articles. A final total of 134 studies
\nwas selected for further analysis (see Fig. 1).
\nQuality Assessment
\nThese studies was assessed using structured guidelines
\n(Loney et al. 2000), and were scored on eight quality
\ncriteria as follows: (1) specification of the target population,
\n(2) use of an adequate sampling method (e.g., random,
\ncluster), (3) adequate sample size (>300 subjects), (4)
\nadequate response rate (>66%), (5) valid, repeatable case
\ndefinition, (6) measurment with valid instrument, (7)
\nreporting of confidence intervals or standard errors, and
\n(8) attempts to reduce observer bias. We recorded the date of
\nthe study, the prevalence (and\/or incidence) estimates of
\ndomestic violence (including life-time and\/or current estimates),
\nand the type of violence reported. These variables
\nwere coded from each study as categorical or continuous.
\nAfter quality assessment was completed, studies were
\nstratified according to the total score from 1\u20138.
\nData Synthesis
\nThe study data were coded and analyzed using SPSS
\nVersion 11. Meta-analyses were conducted in STATA version
\n10. Continuous & categorical variables were expressed as
\nfrequencies and percentages, and are summarized statistically
\nin tables and are presented in graphic form. Prevalence
\nestimates in the figures represent the simple weighted mean
\nprevalence for all the studies done in each continent.
\nA number of the studies we have included are described
\nin more than one publication. In some cases, additional
\nanalysis conducted after completion of a study was reported
\nin additional publications. In these cases, we used both
\nreports to inform the data extraction. Conflict in quality
\nscoring of the included studies was resolved by consensus
\nbetween the authors (SA & RJ)
\nForest plots were produced to give a graphical representation
\nof the studies and to convey the extent of heterogeneity
\nbetween prevalence estimates. Heterogeneity between prevalence
\nestimates was tested using a chi-squared test. Sensitivity
\nanalyses were used to determine whether any heterogeneity
\nfound could be due to differing study methodologies, study
\nquality or geographical differences.
\nPotentially relevant prevalence
\nstudies identified for retrieval
\n(n=1653)
\nPapers excluded on the basis of title & abstract
\n(n=1297)
\nPapers retrieved for more detailed
\nAssessment (n=356)
\nPapers excluded with reasons (n=180), duplicates
\nbetween databases.
\nPotentially appropriate prevalence
\nstudies to be included in the
\nreview (n=176)
\nPrevalence studies excluded from review with reasons (n=134),
\nstudies of risk factors, narratives of domestic violence cases, or
\nreview articles.
\nPrevalence studies included in the
\nreview with usable information
\n(n=134)
\nFig. 1 Flow chart summarising
\nliterature review
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 371
\nResults
\nMost of the studies (41%) were conducted in North America,
\nfollowed by 20% in Europe, 16% in Asia, 11% in Africa,
\nand 5% in the Middle East (Table 1). Eighty three studies
\n(56%) were population-based, twenty five (17%) were
\nconducted in primary care, 12% in emergency care settings
\nand others in obstetrics and gynaecology, paediatric, psychiatric
\nand other hospital clinics. The sample size was over 300
\nin 84% of studies. Approximately 60% used a form of
\nrandomisation in their sampling (Table 2). In 41% of studies
\na measurement instrument was developed by the researchers
\nusing focus groups or by reference to other validated
\nmeasuring instruments, although a few did not report about
\nthe instrument used. The most commonly used instrument
\nwas the Conflict Tactic Scale (16.9%), followed by the
\nAbuse Assessment Screen (14%) and the WHO instrument
\n(13%). The most frequently used method of collecting the
\ndata was face-to-face interviews (55%), followed by selfadministered
\nquestionnaires (30%), and telephone interviews
\n(13%).
\nOnly eighteen studies (12%) scored a maximum of 8 on
\nour quality criteria, with 33 (27%) studies scoring 7, 25
\n(17%) scoring 6 (Table 3).
\nThe mean lifetime prevalence for physical, sexual and
\nemotional violence by country is shown in Fig. 2. The
\nhighest levels of physical violence were seen in Japanese
\nimmigrants to North America (about 47%), who also had
\nhigh levels of emotional violence (about 78%) along with
\nrespondents studied in South America, Europe, and Asia
\n(37\u201350%).
\nThe mean lifetime prevalence of physical violence was
\nfound to be highest (30\u201350%) in studies conducted in
\npsychiatric and obstetric\/gynecology clinics (Fig. 3). The
\nhighest rates of sexual violence were found in studies
\nconducted in psychiatric, obstetric, and gynecology clinics
\n(30\u201335%) and, for emotional violence, the highest rates
\nTable 1 Summary of frequencies of settings and continents
\nFrequency %
\nGeographical setting
\n60 studies in North America 40.5
\n29 studies in Europe 19.6
\n23 studies in Asia 15.5
\n16 studies in Africa 10.8
\n8 studies in Middle East 5.4
\n5 studies in Australia 3.4
\n4 studies in South America 2.7
\nHealthcare setting
\n83 Population studies 56.1
\n25 studies primary care 16.9
\n18 studies in emergency care 12.2
\n8 studies in Obst\/Gyn clinic 5.4
\n5 studies in hospital setting 3.4
\n3 studies in pediatric clinic 2
\n2 studies in psychiatric clinic 1.4
\n2 studies in college students 1.4
\nOne study in surgical clinic 0.7
\nOne study in HMO 0.7
\nMethods
\n80 population cross-sectional studies 54.1
\n57 clinical cross-sectional studies 38.5
\n5 clinical cohort studies 3.4
\n4 population cohort studies 2.7
\nTable 2 Summary of frequencies of sampling, methods, and instruments
\nused
\nFrequency %
\nSampling
\n124 studies >300 sample size 83.8
\n24 studies <300 sample size 16.2
\n88 studies used randomization 59.5
\n54 studies used other methods 36.5
\nInstruments
\n60 studies used their own instrument 40.5
\n25 studies used CTS 16.9
\n21 studies used AAS 14.2
\n19 studies used WHO instrument 12.8
\n6 studies used PVS 4.1
\n4 studies used ISA 2.7
\n3 studies used NorAQ 2
\n2 studies used women\u2019s health questionnaire 1.4
\nOne study used DVI 0.7
\nOne study used SVAWS 0.7
\nOne study used BRFSS 0.7
\nOne study used WorldSAFE 0.7
\nContact with subjects
\n82 studies used face-to-face interview 55.4
\n44 studies used self-administered 29.7
\n19 studies used telephone interview 12.8
\nFrequency %
\n18 studies scored 8 12.2
\n33 studies scored 7 22.3
\n25 studies scored 6 16.9
\n34 studies scored 5 23
\n27 studies scored 4 18.2
\n8 studies scored 3 5.4
\nOne study scored 2 0.7
\n2 studies scored 1 1.4
\nTable 3 Summary of frequencies
\nof qulaity score
\n372 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nwere found in accident and emergency and psychiatric
\ndepartments (65\u201387%).
\nForest plots of prevalence estimates and their confidence
\nintervals indicate that there is a large amount of heterogeneity
\nbetween studies. Heterogeneity was formally tested
\nand confirmed by using the chi-squared test. This test
\nshowed strong evidence of heterogeneity (p<0.001). Sensitivity
\nanalyses found that even in studies that: used a
\nstandardized methodology (WHO), scored high in their
\nquality criteria, were population-based (Fig. 3, 4, 5, and 6),
\nand in studies that were done in the same continents
\n(Dickers 2002), heterogeneity was a constant finding.
\nPooled estimates across geographical locations and settings
\nwere not calculated due to the extreme heterogeneity and
\nthe difficulty in interpreting them.
\nDiscussion
\nThe results of this review emphasize that violence against
\nwomen has reached epidemic proportions in many societies
\nand suggests that no racial, ethnic, or socio-economic group
\nis immune. However, we have also highlighted substantial
\ndifferences in methodologies, sample sizes, sampling
\nperiods, study populations, and the types of violence
\nstudied. For all types of violence there was a consistent
\nand a significant heterogeneity between studies, even in
\nstudies that appeared to use standardized methods (e.g.,
\nWHO multi-country study), population studies, and studies
\nthat scored high on our quality criteria. Age, ethnicity, and
\nsocioeconomic status were not consistently documented,
\nmaking comparisons and Assessments of generalizability
\ndifficult. However, the WHO Multi-country study was an
\nimportant attempt to collect internationally comparable
\nstatistics through the use of standardized survey methods.
\nPrevalence of violence has been assumed to be higher in
\nclinical settings than in population samples (Campbell 2002),
\nbecause it is assumed that health care utilization is higher
\namong victims of abuse (Plichta 1992). For example, high
\nprevalence rates have been measured in specific patient
\ngroups, for example at gynecology clinics in patients with
\nsevere premenstrual syndrome (PMS) or pelvic pain (Golding
\net al. 2000, Walling et al. 1994). This observation is consistent
\nwith the findings in our review, where the highest
\nfigures for violence were found in psychiatric, obstetrics and
\ngynecology, and emergency clinic settings.
\nOur review highlights several important factors involved
\nin the epidemiology of domestic violence against women.
\n1) Surveys may not measure the actual number of women
\nwho have been abused, but rather, the number of
\nwomen who are willing to disclose abuse. As with all
\nself-reported disclosure, it is possible that results are
\nbiased by either over-reporting or under-reporting. In
\nmost studies, however, little evidence of over-reporting
\nhas been found (Koss 1993).
\n2) The meaning of violence varies from culture to culture,
\nand sometimes within the same culture (Krauss 2006).
\nWomen from Asian cultures are brought up in a belief
\nsystem that stresses the greater need of the family over the
\nneeds of individual members (Rydstrom 2003). Although
\nwomen in the poorest of nations are probably most
\ninclined to believe that men are justified in beating their
\nwives, in all settings, in developed and developing
\ncountries, abused women tend to hold more beliefs which
\njustify violence against them (Fagan and Browne 1994).
\nFagan and Browne point out that, in classifying
\nrespondents as victims, a particular interpretation is placed
\non these responses, which may ignore important differences
\nin the interpretation of \u2018assault\u2019 and of behaviors which
\n0 20 40 60 80
\nAsia
\nAfrica
\nEurope
\nSouth America
\nNorth America
\nAustralia
\nMiddle East
\nChinese American
\nJapanese American
\nAmerican Indian
\nmean of prevpl mean of prevsl
\nmean of prevel
\nFig. 2 Mean of lifetime prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional
\nviolence by continent or country. Note: prevpl=prevalence of life time
\nphysical violence, prevel=prevalence of life time emotional violence,
\nprevsl=prevalence of life time sexual violence
\n0 20 40 60 80 100
\npopulation based
\nprimary\/community health
\nhospital
\nED
\nOBST\/GYN
\npediatric
\npsychiatric
\nHMO
\ncollege students
\nsurgery clinic
\nmean of prevPL mean of prevSL
\nmean of prevEL
\nFig. 3 Mean of lifetime prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional
\nviolence by setting. Note: prevpl=prevalence of life time physical
\nviolence, prevel=prevalence of life time emotional violence, prevsl=
\nprevalence of life time sexual violence
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 373
\nconstitute violence. However, not all women who suffer
\nabuse identify with the socially constructed image of a
\n\u2018battered woman (Mahoney 1991). It is not only important
\nto learn whether respondents have experienced any of the
\nparticular behaviors that we define as violent or abusive, but
\nalso to understand to what degree they share these labels
\nwith us. Many important social, political, and economic
\nfactors affect women\u2019s lives, other than the cultural practices
\nthat receive so much attention in relation to violence. These
\ninclude poverty, inequalities, new articulations of patriarchies
\nin specific regions, and the legacies of colonialism and
\nracism (Sokoloff and Pratt 2005).
\nIn Arab and Islamic countries, domestic violence is not
\nyet considered a major concern, despite its increasing
\nfrequency and serious consequences. Domestic violence
\nmay be seen as a private matter and a potentially justifiable
\nresponse to misbehavior on the part of the wife. Selective
\nexcerpts from religious tracts have been inappropriately
\nused to endorse violence against women, although abuse is
\nmore likely to be a result of culture than of religion (Douki
\net al. 2003). However, issues of power and gender (Caetano
\net al. 2000), rather than ethnicity and race (Anderson 1997),
\nmay be more important in creating and maintaining male
\ndominance and the imbalance of power between husbands
\nand wives (Harris et al. 2005).
\nIndeed, definitions of race and ethnicity are themselves
\nproblematic in research of this kind. Diverse ethnic groups are
\noften collapsed into a single category, such as Asians, or the
\npatterns of a single group such as Mexican Americans are over
\ngeneralized to all Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers)s (Campbell et al. 1997). Because
\nof this, data on partner violence among minority populations
\nare often incomplete, precluding meaningful generalizations.
\n3) The measurement of domestic violence, and the accuracy
\nof its reporting, are both fraught with problems, and
\nmuch further work is need in this area. The choice of
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Bangladish 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Brazil 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Ethiopia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Japan 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Namibia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Peru 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Samoa 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Serbia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Thailand 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Tanzania 2006
\nHicks MHR et al 2006
\nYang MS et al 2006
\nMcCloskey LA et al 2005
\nRomito P et al 2005
\nSerquina-Ramiro L 2004
\nSalena H 2004
\nEisikovits Z et al 2004
\nGhazizadeh A 2005
\nop-Sidibe N et al 2006
\nJain D et al 2004
\nNaved R.T et al 2006
\nKhawaja.M & Barazi.R 2005
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Egypt)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Philippine)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Chile)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (India)
\nJewkes.R et al 2002
\nRaj A & Silverman.J.G 2002
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/a
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/b
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/c
\nEllsberg.M.C et al 1999
\nDeyessa.N et al 1998
\nCDC, Georgia 1998
\nHakimi et al 2001
\nstudy_id
\nES (95% CI)
\n19.00 (17.08, 20.92)
\n8.30 (6.72, 9.88)
\n29.00 (27.38, 30.62)
\n3.10 (2.18, 4.02)
\n15.90 (14.05, 17.75)
\n16.90 (14.95, 18.85)
\n17.90 (16.04, 19.76)
\n3.20 (2.30, 4.10)
\n7.90 (6.55, 9.25)
\n14.80 (13.17, 16.43)
\n3.00 (0.51, 5.49)
\n10.10 (7.93, 12.27)
\n16.20 (14.30, 18.10)
\n19.00 (15.27, 22.73)
\n29.00 (26.19, 31.81)
\n70.00 (64.89, 75.11)
\n6.00 (4.78, 7.22)
\n15.00 (12.80, 17.20)
\n47.00 (45.79, 48.21)
\n24.00 (20.26, 27.74)
\n19.00 (17.52, 20.48)
\n17.40 (12.81, 21.99)
\n10.50 (8.11, 12.89)
\n6.20 (4.71, 7.69)
\n3.60 (1.82, 5.38)
\n25.30 (22.12, 28.48)
\n9.50 (7.91, 11.09)
\n26.60 (19.75, 33.45)
\n10.90 (7.83, 13.97)
\n11.90 (8.80, 15.00)
\n4.50 (2.61, 6.39)
\n27.00 (23.06, 30.94)
\n10.00 (7.73, 12.27)
\n6.00 (5.17, 6.83)
\n2.00 (1.01, 2.99)
\n0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
\nFig. 4 Forest plot of current
\nphysical violence studies
\n374 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nmeasures and the methodology used to establish the
\nprevalence of domestic violence have significant impacts
\non the prevalence rates there are reported (Waltermaurer
\n2005). In our study, face-to-face interview methods
\nyielded more disclosures of violence than self-reported
\nor telephone interviews, in accordance with previous
\nresearch indicating that the use of multiple and openended
\nquestions increases accurate reporting (Hamby et
\nal. 1996). Written screening alone probably underestimates
\nthe prevalence of intimate partner violence
\n(McFarlane et al. 1991).
\nOur results indicate that prevalence of all types of
\nviolence has increased over time, despite the provision of
\nlegal services for victims of violence. International law,
\nparticularly the Convention on the Elimination of All
\nForms of Discrimination against Women (Merry 2003) is
\na law without sanctions, so that its implementation can
\neasily be avoided, and traditional interpersonal relationships
\nwithin societies can continue to provide conditions which
\nperpetuate the use of violence (Khawaja and Barazi 2005;
\nMichalski 2004).
\nWhile we have attempted to follow a rigorous protocol
\nin the conduct of this review, it is still subject to a number
\nof limitations. It may be prone to indexing bias, publication
\nbias and reporting bias. Our ability to assess quality of the
\nstudies that we identified was limited by the methodological
\ninformation provided in the published articles, some of
\nwhich was incomplete.
\nConclusion
\nThe high prevalence rates of violence experienced by
\nwomen suggests that doctors practicing in all areas of
\nmedicine need to recognize and explore the potential
\nrelevance of violence issues when considering women\u2019s
\nreasons for presenting with ill health. Sensitization to the
\nproblem of domestic violence should be incorporated not
\nonly in medical training, but into govermental, legal, and
\njudicial organizations. Inconsistences in methodology identified
\nin the study emphasize the importance of developing
\nclearer definitions so that findings can be compared across
\nsettings, to allow more accurate comparasions of prevalence
\nrates over time, and between different population groups.
\nFuture research should seek to recognize cultural differences
\nin family functioning without necessarily viewing such
\ndifferences as \u2018deviant\u2019 or \u2018pathological\u2019, and should recog-
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Bangladish 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Brazil 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Ethiopia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Japan 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Namibia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Peru 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Samoa 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Serbia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Thailand 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Tanzania 2006
\nHicks MHR et al 2006
\nYang MS et al 2006
\nMcCloskey LA et al 2005
\nRomito P et al 2005
\nSerquina-Ramiro L 2004
\nSalena H 2004
\nEisikovits Z et al 2004
\nGhazizadeh A 2005
\nop-Sidibe N et al 2006
\nJain D et al 2004
\nNaved R.T et al 2006
\nKhawaja.M & Barazi.R 2005
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Egypt)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Philippine)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (Chile)
\nRamiro.L.S et al 2004 (India)
\nJewkes.R et al 2002
\nRaj A & Silverman.J.G 2002
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/a
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/b
\nJewkes.R et al 2001\/c
\nEllsberg.M.C et al 1999
\nDeyessa.N et al 1998
\nCDC, Georgia 1998
\nHakimi et al 2001
\nstudy_id 19.00 (17.08, 20.92)
\n8.30 (6.72, 9.88)
\n29.00 (27.38, 30.62)
\n3.10 (2.18, 4.02)
\n15.90 (14.05, 17.75)
\n16.90 (14.95, 18.85)
\n17.90 (16.04, 19.76)
\n3.20 (2.30, 4.10)
\n7.90 (6.55, 9.25)
\n14.80 (13.17, 16.43)
\n3.00 (0.51, 5.49)
\n10.10 (7.93, 12.27)
\n16.20 (14.30, 18.10)
\n19.00 (15.27, 22.73)
\n29.00 (26.19, 31.81)
\n70.00 (64.89, 75.11)
\n6.00 (4.78, 7.22)
\n15.00 (12.80, 17.20)
\n47.00 (45.79, 48.21)
\n24.00 (20.26, 27.74)
\n19.00 (17.52, 20.48)
\n17.40 (12.81, 21.99)
\n10.50 (8.11, 12.89)
\n6.20 (4.71, 7.69)
\n3.60 (1.82, 5.38)
\n25.30 (22.12, 28.48)
\n9.50 (7.91, 11.09)
\n26.60 (19.75, 33.45)
\n10.90 (7.83, 13.97)
\n11.90 (8.80, 15.00)
\n4.50 (2.61, 6.39)
\n27.00 (23.06, 30.94)
\n10.00 (7.73, 12.27)
\n6.00 (5.17, 6.83)
\n2.00 (1.01, 2.99)
\nES (95% CI)
\n0 102030405060708090100
\nFig. 5 Forest plot of prevalences
\nof current physical violence
\nfrom population studies
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 375
\nnize the complex nature of differences between and within
\nethnic groups. More concentrated and culturally sensitive
\nresearch can lead to a clearer understanding of the scope and
\ncauses of violence against women, which in turn may lead to
\nmore effective preventive and intervention efforts.
\nWhat is already known on this topic (sample nursing essay examples by the best nursing assignment writing service):
\n\u2022 Domestic violence is increasingly recognized as a global health issue.
\n\u2022 In the past decade a number of prevalence surveys on intimate
\npartner violence have been performed.
\n\u2022 Widely different estimates of the prevalence of domestic violence
\nhave been reported in different settings, suggesting a need to
\nstandardize the methodology used in such research.
\nWhat this study adds:
\n\u2022 Violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in most
\nsocieties.
\n\u2022 This review identified major differences in methodology,
\ninstruments, sample size, period covered, the population surveyed
\nand types and forms of violence studied.
\n\u2022 In all types of violence our meta-analysis indicated significant
\nheterogeneity between studies, even in studies employing standardized
\nmethods.
\n\u2022 To accurately estimate the prevalence of violence in different
\nsettings, researchers need to develop clear and consistent definitions
\nto allow comparisons between settings.
\n\u2022 prevalence of lifetime domestic violence varies from 1.9% in
\nWashington, US, to 70% in Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers) Latinas in Southeast US.
\nAcknowledgements We would like to acknowledge the advice
\ngiven by Dr. Kalwant Sidhu, Director of the MSc Programme at
\nKing\u2019s College London, Martin Hewitt, who provided advice on
\nliterature searching, Dr. Paul Seed, who provided statistical advice,
\nProf. Gene Feder and Prof. Tony Ades for commenting on the paper
\nbefore submission for publication and to Jeremy Nagle in the British
\nLibrary, who helped to track down references.
\nContributorship Samia Alhabib had the original idea for the study
\nwhich was refined by Roger Jones. Data collection, critical appraisal of
\nstudies and general data analysis were undertaken by Samia Alhabib.
\nMeta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken by Ula Nur.
\nSamia Alhabib and Roger Jones drafted and finalized the manuscript.
\nPotential Conflict of Interest None declared.
\nEthics Approval Not required.
\nFunding None
\nKocacik F et al 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Bangladish 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Brazil 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Ethiopia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Japan 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Namibia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Peru 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Samoa 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Serbia 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Thailand 2006
\nGarcia-Moreno C et al Tanzania 2006
\nXu X 2005
\nSethi D 2004
\nRuiz-Perez I 2006
\nMichelle Hynes et al 2004
\nXU X et al 2001
\nFanslow.J and Robinson.E 2004
\nHakimi et al 2001
\nstudy_id
\n38.25 (34.31, 42.20)
\n39.68 (37.28, 42.07)
\n27.13 (24.59, 29.68)
\n48.67 (46.89, 50.46)
\n12.84 (11.07, 14.61)
\n30.60 (28.27, 32.93)
\n48.59 (45.98, 51.19)
\n40.49 (38.11, 42.86)
\n22.80 (20.65, 24.96)
\n22.92 (20.81, 25.02)
\n32.86 (30.70, 35.02)
\n42.95 (39.02, 46.88)
\n34.85 (28.21, 41.49)
\n22.75 (18.64, 26.86)
\n24.91 (19.93, 29.90)
\n38.00 (34.12, 41.88)
\n16.98 (15.03, 18.94)
\n10.98 (8.76, 13.20)
\nES (95% CI)
\n0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90100
\nFig. 6 Forest plot of high
\nquality studies on life time
\nprevalence of physical
\nviolence
\n376 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nStudy ID Population % & Violence type sampling Sample size Response Case definition instrument CI Bias Score
\nHakim et al. 2001, population study Indonesia (Java) P (LT: 11%, C: 2%), S (LT: 22%, C:
\n13%), E (LT: 34%, C: 16%)
\n765 94% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 7
\nHynes et al. 2004, population study East Timor Current, P; 24.8% (19.9\u201329.8), E;
\n30.5% (22.2\u201338.8), S; 15.7% (8.6\u2013
\n22.8)
\nRandom 288 74% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 7
\nHaj-Yahia et al. 2000, population
\nstudy
\nPalestine Annual incidence; E; 52%,P; 52%,
\nS; 37.6%, EC; 45%
\nRandom 2,800, 1,500 86.7%, 88.9% Yes CTS & ISA, Self-administered No No 6
\nNikki et al. 2000, community clinic Latin Current overall prevalence; 19% Non-random 1,001 Yes AAS, interview No No 4
\nNaved et al. 2006, population study Bangladesh LT prevalence P; 39.7% (Urban),
\n41.7% (Rural), current P; 19%
\n(Urban), 15.8% (Rural),
\nRandom 2,702 96% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 7
\nMousavi et al. 2005, population
\nstudy
\nIran LT overall; 36.8%, Incidence;
\n29.3%, P; 27.2%, E; 32.4%
\nRandom 386 87.5% No Others, interview No Yes 5
\nFawole et al. 2005, population study Nigeria P; Current 31.3% Random 431 No Others, self-administered No Yes 4
\nKhawaja and Barazi 2005,
\npopulation study
\nJordan LT P; 42.5%, C; 17.4% Random 262 (women) 95% Yes Others, interview No No 4
\nSeedat et al. 2005, population study U.S LT P; 16% Random 637 71% No Others, telephone interview No Yes 5
\nAmar and Gennaro 2005, college
\nstudents
\nU.S P; C; 48% Non-random 863 Yes AAS, self-reported No No 4
\nKoziol-McLain et al. 2004, ED New Zealand P; C; 21.3%, LT; 44.3% Random 174 60% Yes interview Yes Yes 6
\nFanslow and Robinson 2004,
\npopulation study
\nNew Zealand LT P, (Auckland); 15%, 17% (North
\nWaikato) S: 9% in Auckland, 12%
\nin North Waikato.
\nRandom 2,855 66.9% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 8
\nRamiro et al. 2004, population study Egypt, India, Philippine, Chile LT; (P): (Egypt); 11.1%, India=
\n34.6%, Philippines = 21.2%,
\nChile= 24.9%
\nRandom 422 (Chile), 631
\n(Egypt), L; 506, T;
\n700, V; 716, 1,000
\n(Philippines),
\nBrazil=813
\n96.1%(Chile),
\n93.5%(Egypt),
\n88%(India),
\n100%
\n(Philippine)
\nYes Developed by researchers using
\nfocus group, interview
\nYes Yes 7
\nC; (P): Chile= 3.6%, Egypt=10.5%,
\nIndia=25.3%, Philippines= 6.2%
\nLT; E; Chile= 50.7%, Egypt=
\n10.5%, India=24.9%,
\nPhilippines=19.3%.
\nC; E; Chile=15.2%, Egypt=10.8%,
\nIndia=16.2%, Philippines=4.8%
\nSwahnberg K et al. 2004, Gyn. clinic Sweden LT E; 16.8, P; 32.1%, S; 15.9%, non-random 2,439 81% Yes NorAQ No Yes 6
\nKoenig et al. 2004, population study Uganda LT coercive sex; 24% 4,279 93% Yes Interview, other methods No Yes 5
\nSwahnberg I M et al. 2003,
\npopulation study
\nSweden, validation study of
\nNorAQ
\nLT P; 36.4%, S; 16.9%, E; 21.4% random 1,168 61% Yes NorAQ Yes Yes 7
\nGrande et al. 2003, population study South Australia LT P; 16%, E; 19% random women=2,884 73.1% Yes Others, telephone survey Yes Yes 8
\nHarwell et al. 2003, population study American Indian C P; 5%, E; 18%, LT for both; 12% random women=588 94% Yes Others, telephone survey No Yes 6
\nMurty et al. 2003, population study Iowa C P; 2.9%, E; 46.7% random 689 67.1% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 7
\nBensley et al. 2003, population
\nstudy
\nWashington C P; 1.9%, E; 5.1% random 3,527 57% Yes BRFSS Yes Yes 7
\nMaziak and Asfar 2003, primary
\ncare.
\nSyria C P; 23% random 411 97% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
\nEl-Bassel et al. 2003, ED New York, American Latin C P, 15%, S; 6%, LT P; 43%, S;
\n20%
\nNon-random 143 Not reported No Others, interview No No 1
\nLlika et al. 2002, primary care center Nigeria C overall; 40%, P; 15.8%, E; 20.1% random 300 100% Yes Others, interview No No 5
\nOkemgbo et al. 2002, population
\nstudy
\nNigeria LT P; 78.7, %, S; 21.3%, Mutilation;
\n52.7%
\nRandom 308 Not reported Yes Others, interview No No 4
\nBasile 2002, population study U.S LT S; 34% Random 602 50% Yes Others, telephone survey No No 4
\nCoker et al. 2002, population study U.S LT P; 13.3%, S; 4.3%, E; 12.1%. Random 6,790 72.1% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 7
\nJewkes et al. 2002, population study South Africa LT P; 24.6%, Current; 9.5% Random 1,306 90.3% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 7
\nAppendix
\nSummary Table of the include studies:
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 377
\naz-Olavarrieta et al. 2002, Hospital
\nstudy
\nMexico P and\/or S; C; 9%, LT; 26.3%. Non-random 1,780 71.9% Yes Self-administered,, AAS No No 5
\nCoker et al. 2002, family practice South Carolina LT P; 41.8%, S; 21.4%, E; 12.1%. 1,152 73% Yes Interview, ISA- to measure the
\nseverity of physical + AAS,
\nweb Scale for E,
\nNo Yes 6
\nMelnick et al. 2002, surgical trauma
\nclinic
\nU.S C P; 18% Not-reported 127 Not-reported Yes PVS, self-administered Yes Yes 5
\nRomito and Gerin 2002, ER
\n+Community center
\nItaly C P and\/or S; 10.2% Non-random 510 76% Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
\nRaj and Silverman 2002, population
\nstudy
\nSouth Asian women in Boston C P; 26.6%, S; 15%, LTP;30.4%, S;
\n18.8%
\nSnowball 160 Not-reported Yes CTS, self-administered No No 3
\nBrokaw et al. 2002, ED New Mexico LT P; 47.3% Random 421 67.1% No Others, interview No Yes 5
\nKrishnan et al. 2001, ED U.S LT P; 72%, S; 20%, E; 92% Non-random 87 70% No Others, interview No No 2
\nGrynbaum et al. 2001, primary care Israel C P; 21.7%, Incidence; 10% Non-random 133 95.7% No PVS, self-administered No No 3
\nBarnes et al. 2001, University
\nstudents
\nAfrican American LT P; 15.6%, E; 11.7% random 179 47% Yes ISA, self-administered No No 4
\nWeinbaum et al. 2001, population
\nstudy
\nCalifornia C P; 6% random 3,408 70% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 7
\nParkinson et al. 2001, Paediatric
\nclinic
\nMassachusetts C P; 2.5%, LT; 16.5%. Non-random 553 71.2% No Others, self-administered Yes No 4
\nCoid et al. 2001, primary care London LT P; 41%, S; 9% Non-random 1,207 55% Yes Others, self-administered No No 3
\nSubramaniam and Sivayogan 2001,
\ncommunity health center
\nSri Lanka LT P; 30%, C; 22% random 417 55% Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
\nJewkes et al. 2001, population study South Africa 1) Eastern Cape (n=396): LT P;
\n26.8%, C P; 10.9%, LT S; 4.5%,
\nC E; 51.4%.
\nrandom 1,306 90.3% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 7
\n2) Mpumalanga: (n=419), LT P;
\n28.4%, C; 11.9%, LT S; 7.2%, C
\nE; 50%.
\n3) Northern Province: (n=464); LT
\nP; 19.1%, C; 4.5%, C E; 39.6%
\nPlichta and Falik 2001, population
\nstudy
\nU.S LT P; 19.1%, S; 20.4% 1,821 Yes CTS Yes No 5
\nBauer et al. 2000, primary care California 1) C P; 10%, S;3%, E; 10%, random 734 74% Yes AAS, telephone survey No No 6
\n2) LT P; 45%, S; 17%, E; 34%
\nHarwell and Spence 2000,
\npopulation study
\nMontana C P; 3% random 1,017 90% Yes Others, telephone interview Yes Yes 7
\nCoker et al. 2000, population study south Carolina LT P; 10.6%, S; 7.8%, E; 7.4% random women=314 69.4% Yes ASS, telephone survey Yes Yes 8
\nCaetano et al. 2000, population
\nstudy
\nU.S couples C P black; 23%, Hispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers); 17%,
\nwhites; 12%
\nrandom White=555,
\nBlack=358,
\nHispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers)=527
\n85% Yes CTS, interview No No 6
\nCDC 2000, population study. South Carolina LT P; 10.6%, E; 7.4%, S; 7.8% random 313 women 69.4% Yes AAS, telephone survey Yes No 7
\nCDC 2000, population study. Washington LT P; 23.6% random 2,012 women 61.4% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 6
\nCoker et al. 2000, family practice South Carolina LT P; 40%, E; 13.6%, C P; 8.9%, E;
\n7.5%
\nNon-random 1,152 73% Yes Interview, ISA to measure
\ncurrent abuse, WEB to assess
\nbattering, AAS to measure
\nlife-time abuse
\nNo Yes 6
\nCoker et al. 2000, family practice Columbia LT P; 32%, S;17.3%, E; 12.5%, C P;
\n18.9%, S; 14.4%,
\n1,401 89% Yes Interview, ISA; for current S
\n&P, WEBS; for battering,
\nASS; for life-time
\nNo No 5
\nErnst et al. 2000, ED U.S C P; 5%, LT; 38.6% Random 57 78% Yes Self-reported, ISA No Yes 5
\nEllsberg et al. 1999, population
\nstudy
\nNicaragua LT P; 40%, C; 27% 488 100% Yes CTS, Interview Yes Yes 7
\nTollestrup et al. 1999, population
\nstudy
\nMexico C P; 6.7%, E; 13.5 Random 2,415 75 Yes CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7
\nDeyessa et al. 1998, population
\nstudy
\nEthiopia LT P; 45% (n=303), C; 10% Random 673 Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
\nKershner et al. 1998, community
\nclinic
\nMinnesota LT P; 37%, C P; 6.6%, E; 21.1%, S;
\n2.1%,
\nNon-random 1,693 82.4% Yes Others, self-administered No Yes 5
\nCDC 1998, population study Georgia C P; 6%, LT; 30% Random 3,130 78% Yes Others, telephone survey Yes No 6
\nPakieser et al. 1998, ED Texas LT P; 37%, C; 10%. Non-random 4,448 40% Yes Others, self-administered No No No
\n378 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nSachs et al., ED California LT P; 14.7%, C; 3.9% Non-random 480 women 66.2% Yes Others, self-administered Yes No 5
\nMagdol et al. 1997, population study New Zealand C P; 27.1%, E; 83.8%
\nSchei et al. 2006, population study Australia LT P\/E\/S; 27.5% Random 356 90% Yes CTS, interview No No 6
\nYuan et al. 2006, population study Native American LT P;45%,S; 14% Random 793 98% Yes Others, interview No No 5
\nAvdibegovic et al. 2006, psychiatric
\nclinic
\nBosnia and Herzegovina LT,P; 75.9%, P & S; 43.5%, E;
\n85.6%
\nRandom 283 89.5% Not reported DVI, interview No No 4
\nKocacik et al. 2006, population
\nstudy
\nTurkey LTE; 53.8%, P 38.3%, S;7.9% random 583 100% Not reported WHO, interview No No 5
\nWHO, Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006,
\npopulation study
\nBangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia,
\nJapan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa
\n(National), Serbia, Thailand,
\nTanzania,
\nBangladesh: LT (P:39.7%,
\nS:37.4%), C (P19%,S:20.2%)
\nrandom 24,097 Japan (60.2%),
\nother countries
\nrange; 85\u2013
\n97.8%
\nYes Interview, built on CTS Yes Yes 8, in
\nJapan=7
\n2-Brazil: LT (P27.2%,S 10.2%), C
\n(P8.3%,S 2.8%).
\n3. Ethiopia: LT (P48.7%, S 58.6%),
\nC (P29%, S 44.4%).
\n4. Japan; LT (P12.9%, S 6.2%), C
\n(P3.1%, S 1.3%).
\n5. Namibia: LT (P30.6%,S 16.5%),
\nC(P15.9%,S9.1%).
\n6. Peru: LT (P48.6%,S 22.5%), C
\n(P16.9%, S 7.1% ).
\n7. Samoa: LT (P40.5%, S 19.5%),
\nC (P17.9%, S 11.5%).
\n8. Serbia: LT (P22.8%, S 6.3%), C
\n(P3.2%, S 1.1%).
\n9. Thailand: LT (P22.9%, S
\n29.9%), C(P7.9%, S 17.1%).
\n10. Tanzania: LT (P32.9%, S 23%),
\nC (P14.8%, S 12.8%).
\nHicks et al. 2006, population study Chinese American LT P;13%, C; 3%, random 323 56% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 7
\nYang et al. 2006, population study Taiwanese aboriginal tribes LT prevalence P; 15%, C; 10.1%, S:
\n4%
\nrandom 876 84.7% No ASS, interview Yes No 6
\nThompson et al. 2006, population
\nstudy
\nWashington LT prevalence (P; 44%, S: 30.3%,
\nE: 35.1%)
\nrandom 3,568 56.4% Yes WEB, telephone survey No No 5
\nRuiz-Perez et al. 2006, general
\npractice
\nSpain LT prevalence; P: 14.3%, E: 30.8%,
\nS: 8.9%
\nRandom 1,402 88.35% Yes WHO, self-administrated No No 6
\nErgin et al. 2005, primary care Turkey (Bursa) LT P; 34.1%, E; 15.8%, economic;
\n8.2%, all-type violence; 29.5%
\nNot reported 1,427 71% Yes AAS, interview No Yes 6
\nMcCloskey et al. 2005, population
\nstudy
\nMohsi (Tanzania sub-Saharan
\nAfrica)
\nLT P: 19.7%, S: 3.4%, C: P; 16.2%,
\nS: 1.4%.
\nRandom 1,444 71% Yes One item from CTS, and 2
\nitems from AAS, one item
\nfrom SES, interview
\nYes No 7
\nOverall prevalence: 26%
\nBengtsson-Tops 2005, psychiatric
\nclinic
\nSweden LT P; 28%, S; 19%, Economic;
\n16%; E; 46%.
\nNon-Random 1,382 79% Yes Others, interview No No 4
\nC; P; 6%, S;3%, Economic; 6%, E;
\n22%
\nKyu and Kana 2005, population
\nstudy
\nMyanmar (South-East Asia), C; P; 27%, E; 69% Random 286 82% Yes CTS, self-administered No No 5
\nBurazeri et al. 2005, population
\nstudy
\nAlbania C; P; 37% Random 1,196 87% No Others, interview Yes No 5
\nMayda and Akkus 2004, population
\nstudy
\nTurkey LT P; 41.4%, E; 25.98%, S; 8.6%,
\nE; 77.6%
\nNon-Random 116 100% Yes Others, interview No Yes 4
\nMcFarlane et al. 2005, primary care U.S C P&S; 8.9% in White, 6% in
\nAfrican American, 5.3% in
\nHispanic (the best nursing writing service, a studybay for your papers).
\nNon random 7,443 Not reported Yes Others No No 4
\nRomito et al. 2005, family practice Italy Overall P, S, E, LT: 27.4%, C:
\n19.9%
\nNon random 444 78.6% Yes Others, self-administered No No 4
\nNewman et al. 2005, paediatric ED Chicago C P & S; 11% Non random 461 Not reported Not reported AAS, self-administered No No 3
\nHegarty and Bush 2002, general
\npractice
\nAustralia LT, P: 23.3%, E: 33.9%, S; 10.6% random 2,338 78.5% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes No 6
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 379
\nDal Grande et al. 2003, population
\nstudy
\nAustralia LT P; 16%, E; 19%. random 6,004 73.1% Yes Others, telephone interview Yes Yes 7
\nXu X et al. 2005, gynecology clinic China (Fuzhou) Overall LT P, S, E; 43%, C; 26% random 685 89% Yes WHO Q, interview Yes No 7
\nParish et al. 2004, population study China LT P; 34% random 1,665 women 76% No Others, interview No No 4
\nJohn et al. 2004, gynecology clinic North England LT P; 21%, C: 4% Non random 920 90% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 5
\nRomito et al. 2004, primary care Italy LT P; 14.1%, S; 17.6%, E; 16.4% Non random 542 8.6% Yes Others, Self-administered Yes No 5
\nC: P; 5.2%, S: 5.2%, E: 19%
\nSerquina-Ramiro et al. 2004,
\npopulation study
\nManila LT P; 47.2%, C; 29% Random 1,000 90% Yes WorldSAFE, interview No Yes 7
\nRivera- Rivera et al. 2004,
\npopulation study
\nMexico LT P; 35.8% random 1,641 93.5% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 8
\nKeeling and Birch 2004, Hospital Warral, UK LT P: 34.9%, C; 14% Non random 294 99.3% No AAS, self administered Yes No 4
\nCox et al. 2004, ED Northern Canada Overall life-time P & E: 51%, C:
\n26%,
\nrandom 1,223 80% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 8
\nIncidence: 18%
\nKramer et al. 2004, primary care U.S LT: P; 49.5%, S; 265, E; 72%. Non random 1,268 9% in each cell Yes AAS, self administered Yes No 6
\nC; P; 11.7%, S; 4.2%, E; 27.9%.
\nSethi et al. 2004, ER UK Life-time P.; 34.8%, C; 6.1% Non random 228 86.8% Yes WHO Q, interview Yes No 5
\nPeralta and Fleming 2003, family
\nmedicine
\nMadison, Wisconsin C; P: 10.3%, E; 43.5% Non random 399 Not reported Yes CTS, self reported No No 4
\nRuiz-Perez et al. 2006, primary care Spain LT of any violence; 22.8% Non random 449 89.08% Yes WHO Q, self administered No No 5
\nLown et al. 2006, population study California C P; 27.4%, S; 6.7% Non random 1,786 85% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 7
\nGhazizadeh et al. 2005, population
\nstudy
\nIran LT P; 38%, C; 15% random 1,040 97% No Others, interview No No
\nFaramarzi et al. 2005, obstetric\/
\ngynecology clinic
\nIran C P; 15%, S; 42.4%, E; 81.5% Non random 2,400 Not clear Yes AAS, interview No No 5
\nAhmed and Elmradi 2005, medical
\ncenter
\nSudan C P & E; 41.6% Non random 492 86.8% Yes Others, self-administered No No 4
\nEvans-Campbell et al. 2006,
\npopulation study
\nNew York LT P; 40% random 112 women 83% No Others, interview No Yes 4
\nop-Sidibe et al. 2006, population
\nstudy
\nEgypt LT P; 34.3%, C; 47% random 6,566 99% Yes Others, interview No No 5
\nApler et al. 2005, primary care Turkey LT P; 58.7%, C P; 41.1%%, E;
\n33.6%
\nNon random 506 Not reported Yes AAS, interview No No 4
\nCoid et al. 2003, general practice Hackney, east London LT S; 24% Non random 1,206 54% Yes Others, self administered Yes No 4
\nSiegel et al. 2003, pediatric setting U.S Incidence; 6%, LT P; 22%, C: 16% Non random 435 Not reported No Others, self administered No Yes 3
\nBoyle and Todd 2003, ED Cambridge LT P; 21.3%, C; 6.1%, incidence:
\n1.2%
\nrandom 307 84.8% Yes Others, interview Yes No 5
\nShaikh et al. 2003, obstetric\/
\ngynecology clinic
\nPakistan LT P; 55.9%, E; 75.9%, S; 46.9% Non random 307 70.4% Yes Others, interview No No 3
\nRichardson et al. 2002, general
\npractice
\nEast London LT P:;41%, C; 17%, E; 74% Non random 2,192 64% Yes Others, self administered Yes Yes 6
\nBradley et al. 2002, general practice Ireland LT P; 39%, E; 54% Non random 2,615 72% Yes Others, self administered Yes No 5
\nMazza et al. 2001, population study Australia Overall LT prevalence; 28.5%, E;
\n17%, S; 40.8%,
\nNon random 395 90% Yes CTS, self-administered Yes No 6
\nZachary et al. 2001, ED New York C P; 7.9%, LT; 38% Non random 795 76.8% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 6
\nAz- Olavarrieta et al. 2001, hospital
\nstudy
\nMexico LT P; 14%, E; overall; 40%, S; 9.3% Non random 1,255 83% Yes Others, elf-administered Yes No 5
\nAugenbraun et al. 2001, hospital
\nstudy
\nBrooklyn, NY LT P; 37.6%, E; 32.8%, C P;
\n15.5%, E; 19.1%
\nNon random 375 96% Yes Others, elf-administered No Yes 5
\nLown and Vega 2001, population
\nstudy
\nFresno County, California C P; 10.7% Random 1,155 90% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes Yes 8
\nHedin et al. 2000, gynecology clinic Sweden C; P; 6%, S; 3%, E; 12.5% Non random 207 64% Yes SVAW, self-administered No No 3
\nJones et al. 1999, HMO survey Washington DC LT P, S, E; 36.9%, C; 4% Non random 10, 599 14% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 4
\nDuffy et al. 1999, pediatric ED New England city LT P; 52%, S; 21%, Non random 157 Not reported Yes AAS, interview No Yes 4
\nFikree and Bhatti 1999, primary care Pakistan, Karachi LT P; 34% Non random 150 Not reported No Others, interview No No 1
\nDearwater et al. 1998, ED Pennsylvania & California LT P\/E; 36.9%, C P\/S; 14.4% Non random 4,641 74% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes Yes 7
\nErnst et al. 1997, ED New Orleans LT non P; 22%, P; 33%, C non-Pl;
\n15%, current P; 19%
\nrandom 283 women 94% Yes ISA, self-administered No No 5
\n380 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nReferences
\nAnderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: an
\nintegration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal
\nof Marriage and the Family, 50(3), 655\u2013669.
\nCaetano, R., Cunradi, C., Clark, C.,& Schafer, J. (2000). Intimate partner
\nviolence and drinking patterns among white, black, and hispanic
\ncouples in the U.S. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11(2), 123\u2013138.
\nCampbell, J. C. (1995). Adult response to violence. In J. C. Campbell
\n(Ed.), Violence: A plague in our land (pp. 19\u201329). Washington,
\nDC: American Academy of Nursing.
\nCampbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner
\nviolence. Lance, 359, 1331\u20131336.
\nCampbell, D., Masaki, B., & Torres, S. (1997). Water on the rock:
\nChanging domestic violence perception in the African American,
\nAsian American, and Latino communities. In E. Klein, J.
\nCampbell, E. Soler & M. Ghez (Eds.), Ending domestic violence:
\nChanging public perceptions\/halting the epidemic (pp. 65\u201370).
\nCalif Sage: Thousands Oaks.
\nDickers, K. (2002). Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we
\nso far behind International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 6\u201312.
\nDouki, S., Nacef, F., Belhadje, A., Bouasker, A., & Ghachem, R.
\n(2003). Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries.
\nArchives of Women Ment Health, 6, 165\u2013171.
\nEllsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching violence against
\nwomen: A practical guide for researchers and Aactivists.
\nWashington DC: World Health Organization, PATH.
\nEllsberg, M., Jansen, H., Heike, L., Watts, C., & Garcia-Moreno, C.
\n(2008). Intimate partner violence and women\u2019s physical and mental
\nhealth in the WHO multi-country study on women\u2019s health and
\ndomestic violence: an observational study. Lancet, 371, 1165\u20131172.
\nFagan, J., & Browne, A. (1994). Violence between spouses and
\nintimates: Physical aggresion between men and women in
\nintimate relationships. In A. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding
\nand preventing violence: Social influences, Vol. 3 (pp. 115\u2013
\n292). Washington, DC: National Academy.
\nGarcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heike, L., & Watts, C.
\n(2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the
\nWHO multi-country study on women\u2019s health and domestic
\nviolence. Lancet, 368, 1260\u20131269.
\nGelles, R. (1997). Intimate violence in families (pp. 146\u2013149).
\nLondon: Sage.
\nGolding, J. M., Taylor, D. L., Menard, L., & King, M. J. (2000).
\nPrevalence of sexual abuse history in a sample of women seeking
\ntreatment for premenstrual syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic
\nObstetatric and Gynecology, 21, 69\u201380.
\nHagemann-White, C. (2001). European research on the prevalence of
\nviolence against women. Violence Against Women, 7, 732\u2013759.
\nHamby, S. L., Poindeter, V. C., & Caray-little, B. (1996). Four measures
\nof partner violence: construct similarity and classification differences.
\nJournal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 127\u2013139.
\nHarris, R. J., Firestone, J. M., & Vega, W. A. (2005). The interaction
\nof country of origin, acculturation, and gender role ideology on
\nwife abuse. Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 463\u2013483.
\nHeise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence
\nagainst women. Baltimore: John\u2019s Hopkins University School of
\nPublic Health; Population Information Program. Report No.11,
\nSeries L.
\nJoachim, J. (2000). Shaping the human rights agenda: the case of
\nviolence against women. In M. K. Meyer & E. Prugl (Eds.),
\nGender politics in global governance (pp. 142\u2013160). Lanham:
\nRowman and Little Field.
\nKhawaja, M., & Barazi, R. (2005). Prevalence of wife beating in
\nJordanian refugee camps: reports by men and women. Journal of
\nEpidemiological Community Health, 59, 840\u2013841.
\nFeldhaus et al. 1997, ED Colorado C P; 25.5% Random 322 76% Yes PVS, interview No Yes 7
\nSalena et al. 2004, population study southeast US C P; 70%, LT; 17% Non random 309 Not reported Yes Others, self-administered No Yes 4
\nBiroscak et al. 2006, ED Michigan Incidence P, S; 38.8% Random 2,926 82% Yes Others, chart review Yes No 6
\nSalam et al. 2006, population study Bangladesh Overall P, S, E; 44.9% random 496 73% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
\nHofner et al. 2005, ED Switzerland Overall C P, E; 10.8% Non random 1,894 77.2% Yes PVS, interview No No 5
\nEisikovits et al. 2004, population study Israel LT P; 13%, C; 6%, C E; 56% Random 2,092 70% Yes CTS, self-administered No Yes 7
\nRinfret-Raynor et al. 2004,
\npopulation study
\nCanada (Quebec) C; P; 6.1%, S; 6.8%, E; 66.2% Random 2,120 76.6% Yes SVS, CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7
\nKrishnan et al. 2005, population
\nstudy
\nSouth India LT P; 29%, S; 12% Random 397 88 Yes Others, interview Yes No 6
\nKoziol-McLain et al. 1999,
\npopulation study (PHD)
\nColorado C P, S; 8.4% Random 409 82% Yes PVS, followed by CTS,
\ntelephone survey
\nYes Yes 8
\nJain et al. 2004, population study India LT P; 48%, C; 24%, C E; 38%, Random 500 79% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
\nCsoboth et al. 2003, population study Hungarian LT P; 31.7% Random 3,615 94% Yes Others, self-administered No No 5
\nWijma et al. 2003, gynecology clinic 5 Nordic countries LT P; 47.7%, C; 3.9%. Non random 4,729 77 Yes NorAQ, self-administered No No 5
\nLT S; 24.1%, C; 1.2%,
\nLT E; 26.8%, C; 6.2%.
\nMedina et al. 2003, population study Spain P; 8.05%, S; 11.48%, E; 42.52% random 2,015 71.3% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 8
\nSmith et al. 2002, population study U.S C P; 8.6%, S; 8.2%, E; 13.5% random 268 45% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 4
\nYoshihama et al. 2001, population
\nstudy
\nJapan LT P; 51.7%, S; 29.9%, E; 75.8% random 211 52% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 5
\nX Xu et al. 2001, obstetric\/
\ngynecology clinic, PHD
\nChina LT P; 38%, S;16% random 600 885 Yes WHO, interview No No 6
\nC P; 21%, S; 12%
\nTollestrup et al. 1999, population study Mexico C E; 13.5%, P; 6.7% random 2,418 75% Yes CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7
\n*Readers can e-mail the correspondent author to have the full citation of the needed references
\nJ Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382 381
\nKoss, M. P. (1993). Detecting the scope of rape: a review of
\nprevalence research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
\n8(2), 198\u2013222.
\nKrauss, H. (2006). Perspectives on violence. Annals of the New York
\nAcademy of Science, 108, 4\u201321.
\nLoney, P., Chambers, L., Bennett, K., Roberts, J., & Stratford, P.
\n(2000). Critical appraisal of the health research literature:
\nprevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Diseases
\nin Canada, 19(4), 170\u2013176.
\nMahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: redefining the
\nissues of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 165\u2013194.
\nMcFarlane, J., Christoffel, K., Bateman, L., Miller, V., & Bullock, L.
\n(1991). Assessing for abuse: self-report versus nurse interview.
\nPublic Health Nurse, 8, 245\u2013250.
\nMerry, S. (2003). Constructing a global law-violence against women
\nand the human rights system. Law and Social Inquiry: A new
\nglobal legality. American Bar Foundation, 941\u2013977.
\nMichalski, J. (2004). Making sociological sense out of trends in intimate
\npartner violence. Violence against Women, 10(6), 652\u2013675.
\nPlichta, S. (1992). The effects of woman abuse on health care
\nutilization and health status: a literature review. Women\u2019s Health
\nIssues, 2(3), 154\u2013163.
\nRydstrom, H. (2003). Encounting \u201chot\u201d anger: domestic violence in
\ncontemporary Vietnam. Violence Against Women, 9, 676\u2013697.
\nSadowski, L., Hunter, W., Bangdiwala, S., & Munoz, S. (2004). The
\nworld studies of abuse in the family enviroment (WorldSAFE): a
\nmodel of a multi-national study of family violence. Injury
\nControl and Safety Promotion, 11(2), 81\u201390.
\nSokoloff, N., & Pratt, C. (2005). Domestic violence at the margines:
\nreadings on race, class, gender, and culture. Rutgers University
\nPress, 42\u201347.
\nWalling, M. K., Reiter, R. C., O\u2019Hara, M. W., Milburn, A. K., Lilly,
\nG., & Vincent, S. D. (1994). Abuse history and chronic pain in
\nwomen. I. Prevalences of sexual abuse and physical abuse.
\nObstetric and Gynecology, 84, 193\u2013199.
\nWaltermaurer, E. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence (IPV);
\nyou may only get what you ask for. Journal of Interpersonal
\nViolence, 20(4), 501\u2013506.
\nWisner, C. L., Glimmer, T. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Zink, T. M.
\n(1999). Intimate partner violence against women: do victims
\ncost health plans more Journal of Family Practice, 48, 439\u2013
\n443.
\nWorld Bank. (1993). Investing in health: World development
\nindicators: World Development Report. New York: Oxford
\nUniversity Press.
\nWorld Health Organization. (1997). Violence against women: A priority
\nhealth issue. https:\/\/monkessays.com\/write-my-essay\/who.int\/gender\/violence\/prioreng\/en\/
\nindex.html (accessed April, 8 2008).
\n382 J Fam Viol (2010) 25:369\u2013382
\nCopyright of Journal of Family Violence is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its
\ncontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s
\nexpress written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.<\/p>\n
APA Module Assignment
\nFor this assignment, you will review materials in the DeVry library to help gain a better understanding of APA citations.
\na. Click https:\/\/hub2.devry.edu\/node\/272
\nb. Listen to the tutorial or download and review the transcript on APA and answer the questions below
\nAfter reviewing the presentation, compose a 2-paragraph response in which you address each of the following points:
\n1. Why is APA style used to document ideas in writing What is the purpose of the in-text citation Demonstrate your understanding of the in-text citation by providing an in-text citation for the article you summarized for the week 2 [Essay writing service – your education, our expertise: Get any assignment done with our professional essay writers before your deadlines – Zero AI, Human experts and Fast delivery.] assignments. (15 points)
\n2. In the article that you summarized in week 2 [Essay writing service – your education, our expertise: Get any assignment done with our professional essay writers before your deadlines – Zero AI, Human experts and Fast delivery.], you may have found some information that you want to quote directly. To demonstrate the process for citing a direct quote, provide an example of properly quoted material. (20 points)