Women's and men's reports of past-year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape and women's risk factors for intimate partner violence: A multicountry cross-sectional study in Asia and the Pacific
Women's and men's reports of past-year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape and women's risk factors for intimate partner violence: A multicountry cross-sectional study in Asia and the Pacific
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pmed.1002381
复制
发表时间：
2017-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
15.8
通讯作者：
Garcia-Moreno, Claudia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jewkes, Rachel;Fulu, Emma;Garcia-Moreno, Claudia
了解过去一年男性实施的亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）的流行程度和风险因素对于建立循证预防和监测可持续发展目标（SDG）5.2的进展至关重要，但到目前为止，基于人口的研究仍然非常有限。本研究的目的是比较亚洲和太平洋地区4个国家妇女和男子报告的去年男性实施IPV和非伴侣强奸的人口流行率。另一个目标是描述与妇女的经验，过去一年的身体或性IPV从妇女的报告和因素驱动妇女的过去一年的经验，partner violence.Methods和findingsThis本文介绍了从联合国多国研究的结果男性和暴力在亚洲和太平洋地区的风险因素。在这项研究过程中，在基于人口的横断面调查中，对来自4个国家的5，206名男性和3，106名女性进行了采访，年龄在18-49岁之间：柬埔寨，中国，巴布亚新几内亚（PNG）和斯里兰卡。为了测量风险因素，我们使用逻辑回归和结构方程模型来显示途径和介质。分析不是基于书面计划，根据审查员的意见，将一些材料移至补充文件，并在未消除变量的情况下进行回归分析。男性报告的IPV终身犯罪（身体或性IPV范围32.5%-80%）比女性经历的IPV（身体或性IPV范围27.5%-67.4%）更多，但女性报告的过去一年的经验（身体或性IPV范围8.2%-32.1%）与男性（身体或性IPV范围10.1%-34.0%）没有非常明显的差异。妇女报告的情感/经济虐待要多得多（去年男子的比例为1.4%-5.7%，妇女为4.1%-27.7%）。非伴侣强奸的报告在男性（去年的范围为0.8%-1.9%）和女性（去年的范围为0.4%-2.3%）中相似，但布干维尔除外，那里的男性比例较高（11.7%对5.7%）。风险因素模型显示，4组变量在过去一年的性和/或身体IPV的经验是重要的：（1）贫困，（2）所有的童年创伤，（3）争吵和妇女的有限的控制关系，（4）合作伙伴的因素（药物滥用，失业和不忠）。经常吵架的人群归因分数（PAF）最高，其次是童年时期接触暴力的人群。关系控制变量组的PAF第三高，其次是其他合作伙伴因素。目前已婚妇女也面临更大的风险。在结构模型中，弹性路径显示贫困减少，高等教育和更多的性别平等思想是相互联系的，并传达了对IPV的保护。这些都是可控制的风险因素。这项研究是横截面的，所以我们不能肯定的时间序列的曝光，但结果是一个过去一年的措施，在一定程度上缓解了这个问题。ConclusionsPast-year IPV指标的基础上，妇女的报告的经验，开发跟踪可持续发展目标5可能是合理可靠的，但并不总是会得到相同的患病率可能是由男性报告。报告的有效性需要进一步研究。与男性进行访谈以追踪过去一年的非伴侣强奸犯罪是可行的，也是重要的。研究结果表明，一系列因素与过去一年的身体和/或性IPV暴露有关;特别令人感兴趣的是结构模型所建议的弹性途径，该途径非常适合干预，并解释了为什么将妇女经济赋权和性别赋权/关系技能培训相结合是成功的。这项研究为扩大预防暴力的干预措施提供了更多的理由，这些干预措施将联合收割机经济和妇女赋权/关系技能建设结合起来，并强调了投资于女孩教育的价值，以期长期减少暴力。
BackgroundUnderstanding the past-year prevalence of male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) and risk factors is essential for building evidence-based prevention and monitoring progress to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5.2, but so far, population-based research on this remains very limited. The objective of this study is to compare the population prevalence rates of past-year male-perpetrated IPV and nonpartner rape from women's and men's reports across 4 countries in Asia and the Pacific. A further objective is to describe the risk factors associated with women's experience of past-year physical or sexual IPV from women's reports and factors driving women's past-year experience of partner violence.Methods and findingsThis paper presents findings from the United Nations Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. In the course of this study, in population-based cross-sectional surveys, 5,206 men and 3,106 women aged 18-49 years were interviewed from 4 countries: Cambodia, China, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Sri Lanka. To measure risk factors, we use logistic regression and structural equation modelling to show pathways and mediators. The analysis was not based on a written plan, and following a reviewer's comments, some material was moved to supplementary files and the regression was performed without variable elimination. Men reported more lifetime perpetration of IPV (physical or sexual IPV range 32.5%-80%) than women did experience (physical or sexual IPV range 27.5%-67.4%), but women's reports of past-year experience (physical or sexual IPV range 8.2%-32.1%) were not very clearly different from men's (physical or sexual IPV range 10.1% -34.0%). Women reported much more emotional/economic abuse (past-year ranges 1.4%-5.7% for men and 4.1%-27.7% for women). Reports of nonpartner rape were similar for men (range 0.8%-1.9% in the past year) and women (range 0.4%-2.3% in past year), except in Bougainville, where they were higher for men (11.7% versus 5.7%). The risk factor modelling shows 4 groups of variables to be important in experience of past-year sexual and/or physical IPV: (1) poverty, (2) all childhood trauma, (3) quarrelling and women's limited control in relationships, and (4) partner factors (substance abuse, unemployment, and infidelity). The population attributable fraction (PAF) was largest for quarrelling often, but the second greatest PAF was for the group related to exposure to violence in childhood. The relationship control variable group had the third highest PAF, followed by other partner factors. Currently married women were also more at risk. In the structural model, a resilience pathway showed less poverty, higher education, and more gender-equitable ideas were connected and conveyed protection from IPV. These are all amenable risk factors. This research was cross-sectional, so we cannot be sure of the temporal sequence of exposure, but the outcome being a past-year measure to some extent mitigates this problem.ConclusionsPast-year IPV indicators based on women's reported experience that were developed to track SDG 5 are probably reasonably reliable but will not always give the same prevalence as may be reported by men. Report validity requires further research. Interviews with men to track past-year nonpartner rape perpetration are feasible and important. The findings suggest a range of factors are associated with past-year physical and/or sexual IPV exposure; of particular interest is the resilience pathway suggested by the structural model, which is highly amenable to intervention and explains why combining economic empowerment of women and gender empowerment/relationship skills training has been successful. This study provides additional rationale for scaling up violence prevention interventions that combine economic and gender empowerment/relationship skills building of women, as well as the value of investing in girls' education with a view to long-term violence reduction.