Advocates in the field of intimate partner violence (IPV) have started to more actively engage survivors around their own perceptions of their lethality risk, as well as assist them in developing strategies for reducing and managing risk related to reassault and intimate partner homicide (IPH). Although research has examined the risk factors most associated with risk and utilized this information in the development and validation of risk assessment tools to be used with survivors, less is known about which indicators survivors most associate with lethality risk. This study aims to fill this gap by examining which risk indicators IPV survivors associate with fatality risk. Classification and regression tree analyses were used to differentiate between women who believed their partners were capable of killing them and those who did not. Data on a sample of 213 survivors of IPV used in this analysis were collected as part of a larger study in which a risk assessment instrument was piloted across four counties within New Jersey in 2016. More than three fourths of participants believed that their abuser was capable of killing them. Alhough the majority of survivors in the study felt as though their abusers were capable of killing them, there was variation in how survivors prioritized risk indicators. Factors associated with fatality risk included: (a) prior homicide threats; (b) whether the abusers had control over survivors’ daily activities; (c) abusers’ access to a gun; and (d) abusers’ drug use. Findings suggest that IPV survivors need targeted intervention strategies around IPH, particularly those at higher perceived risk levels given the presence of risk indicators and their perceptions of lethality threat.
Economic abuse is a poorly understood form of intimate partner violence but may have far-reaching implications for the financial health of the survivor. Additionally, very little is known about whether depressive symptoms, education, employment, or attitudes about relations between men and women mediate or moderate the relationship between economic abuse and their financial circumstances. The purpose of this study was to answer these two research questions: (a) Is there a relationship between the experience of economic abuse and food insecurity (as a measure of poverty)? (b) Is the relationship between economic abuse and food insecurity impacted by women’s education, women’s and men’s employment, women’s attitudes towards gender relations, or women’s depressive symptoms? We used quantitative data from the “UN Multi-Country Study on Men and Violence,” analyzing data on 3,105 women aged 18–49 years who were interviewed. Initial logistic regressions were conducted followed by introducing moderators and mediators to the model using path analyses to test the relationship between economic abuse and food insecurity in the household. Significant predictors of food insecurity included several types of abuse and partners’ employment, women’s own employment, and education. The only type of IPV not associated with food insecurity was physical abuse. Experiences of economic abuse were associated with a 1.69 times greater likelihood of reporting food insecurity which was higher than experiences of psychological or sexual abuse. Additionally, women’s experiences of economic abuse over their lifetime were significantly associated with an increase in depressive symptoms which in turn was associated with greater likelihood of experiencing food insecurity. Such relationships warrant attention to economic abuse and depressive symptoms as part of the interventions used when working with survivors. Additional research could also help further our understanding of how these variables interact together and how best to address its impact on survivors.
Domestic violence (DV) has a negative effect on the lives of women, contributing to significant physical and mental health issues, especially for women in poverty (Goodman, Smyth, Borges, & Singer, 2009). Perpetrators of DV can financially trap women in relationships using a variety of tactics including financial abuse (Postmus, Plummer, McMahon, Murshid, & Kim, 2012), which can negatively impact survivors' psychological well-being and quality of life (Adams & Beeble, 2019). Furthermore, DV is associated with decreased job stability for survivors. These negative effects can remain for years after the violence has ended (Adams, Tolman, Bybee,
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in more than 282 million cases and almost 5.5 million deaths (WHO Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Dashboard, 2022). Its impact, however, has not been uniform. This analysis examines differences in COVID-19 cases and mortality rates amongst different welfare states within the first three waves of the pandemic using repeated measures Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA). Liberal states fared much better on the number of COVID-19 cases, deaths, and excess deaths than the Conservative/Corporatist welfare democracies. Social Democratic countries, in turn, did not fare any better than their Conservative/Corporatist counterparts once potential confounding economic and political variables were accounted for: countries’ economic status, healthcare spending, availability of medical personnel, hospital beds, pandemic-related income support and debt relief, electoral events, and left-power mobilization. The pandemic-related welfare responses after the first wave were similar across all three types of western democracies, but the differences in pandemic outcomes remained. The somewhat better outlook of the Liberal states could be attributed to the so-called social democratization of the Anglo-American democracies, but also to the fact that neoliberalism could have flattened the previous differences between the welfare states typologies and could have brought states closer to each other, ideologically speaking, in terms of welfare provision.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.