Scholarlink

Background/Aim <p>Intimate partner violence has a significant impact on people as individuals, as families, and as communities. The ripple effects extend beyond the immediate victims, straining healthcare systems, stifling economic productivity, and hindering social progress. The study aims to present the spatial distribution of intimate partner violence prevalence, identify socio-demographic and contextual predictors, and establish associations with public health indicators.</p> Methods <p>This is a secondary data analysis, using a nationally representative demographic and health survey (DHS) conducted in Nigeria. A two-stage stratified random sampling was employed in the standard DHS survey and 10,678 women of childbearing age were randomly selected for the intimate partner violence module. A Research Proforma of the selected variables from DHS was used to extract the data required for the study. Descriptive and inferential analyses were carried out on the data using Microsoft Excel dashboards, spatial map and random-intercept logistic regression.</p> Results <p>The study found the prevalence of intimate partner violence across the country to be 33.9%. Region and place of residence had significant association with intimate partner violence (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). The multivariate analysis identified ethnicity difference of couple (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.03–1.48), age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03), sex of household head (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.22–3.94), jealousy (OR = 1.67, 95%, CI: 1.50–1.86), family history of intimate partner violence (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 2.29–3.40), and alcohol consumption (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.54–3.58) among other factors as the socio-demographic and contextual factors influencing intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence also had a significant association with mental health, physical health, and sexual health. The spatial analysis done on the prevalence of intimate partner violence found a variation in the occurrence of intimate partner violence across the States of the country, while the probability of intimate partner violence obtained from the model ranges from 0.24 to 0.85.</p> Conclusion <p>The study identified communities in Nigeria with higher probability of intimate partner violence (IPV). These communities should be priortised for targeted intervention, also it is recommended that laws on IPV should be strengthened at national and regional levels.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Spatial variation of intimate partner violence and its public health implication: a cross-sectional study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月12日

查看全文
  • Abisola Esther Babatope,
  • Demilade Olusola Ibirongbe,
  • Idowu Peter Adewumi,
  • Damola Olanipekun Ajisafe,
  • Oluwafunbi Ajoke Fadipe,
  • Gbenga Omotade Popoola,
  • Kayode Olayiwola Adepoju,
  • Oluyemi Adewole Okunlola

摘要

Background/Aim

Intimate partner violence has a significant impact on people as individuals, as families, and as communities. The ripple effects extend beyond the immediate victims, straining healthcare systems, stifling economic productivity, and hindering social progress. The study aims to present the spatial distribution of intimate partner violence prevalence, identify socio-demographic and contextual predictors, and establish associations with public health indicators.

Methods

This is a secondary data analysis, using a nationally representative demographic and health survey (DHS) conducted in Nigeria. A two-stage stratified random sampling was employed in the standard DHS survey and 10,678 women of childbearing age were randomly selected for the intimate partner violence module. A Research Proforma of the selected variables from DHS was used to extract the data required for the study. Descriptive and inferential analyses were carried out on the data using Microsoft Excel dashboards, spatial map and random-intercept logistic regression.

Results

The study found the prevalence of intimate partner violence across the country to be 33.9%. Region and place of residence had significant association with intimate partner violence (p < 0.05). The multivariate analysis identified ethnicity difference of couple (OR = 1.23, 95% CI: 1.03–1.48), age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.01–1.03), sex of household head (OR = 2.19, 95% CI: 1.22–3.94), jealousy (OR = 1.67, 95%, CI: 1.50–1.86), family history of intimate partner violence (OR = 2.79, 95% CI: 2.29–3.40), and alcohol consumption (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.54–3.58) among other factors as the socio-demographic and contextual factors influencing intimate partner violence. Intimate partner violence also had a significant association with mental health, physical health, and sexual health. The spatial analysis done on the prevalence of intimate partner violence found a variation in the occurrence of intimate partner violence across the States of the country, while the probability of intimate partner violence obtained from the model ranges from 0.24 to 0.85.

Conclusion

The study identified communities in Nigeria with higher probability of intimate partner violence (IPV). These communities should be priortised for targeted intervention, also it is recommended that laws on IPV should be strengthened at national and regional levels.