Feminist scholars have long argued the presence of a "rape culture" within the United States; however, limited efforts have been made to quantify this construct. A model of rape culture was first proposed in 1980 and expanded in the 1990s in an effort to quantify rape myth acceptance. This model posits that five underlying components make up a rape culture: traditional gender roles, sexism, adversarial sexual beliefs, hostility toward women, and acceptance of violence. Although these components are proposed as cultural phenomenon and thus distinct from individually held beliefs, they have been exclusively explored on an individual level. Thus, to promote exploration of this phenomenon beyond individually held beliefs, the authors adapted a series of well-established measures to assess the perceived peer support of the constructs proposed to underlie rape culture and assess initial reliability and validity in a sample of 314 college students. Following determination of reliability and validity of these adapted measures, a hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis was run to examine the proposed model of rape culture. Results of this study highlight the uniqueness between individual and cultural factors as several items did not translate from an individual (i.e., personal endorsement) to a cultural level (i.e., perceived peer support) and were subsequently removed from the proposed final measurements. Furthermore, initial support for the aforementioned model of rape culture was identified. These findings are crucial given that limited conclusions may be drawn about the existence and in turn eradication of rape culture without an agreed upon definition and source of measurement.

This study explored the acceptability, feasibility, and initial efficacy of an expanded version of a PTSD treatment developed for residents of battered women’s shelters, Helping to Overcome PTSD through Empowerment (HOPE) in women who received standard shelter services (SSSs). A Phase I randomized clinical trial comparing HOPE + SSSs (n = 30) to SSSs (n = 30) was conducted. Primary outcome measures included the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (Blake et al., 1995) and the Revised Conflict Tactic Scales (Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996). Participants were followed at 1-week, and 3- and 6-months posttreatment. Only 2 women dropped out of HOPE + SSS treatment. Latent growth curve analyses found significant treatment effects for PTSD from intimate partner violence (IPV) (β = −.007, p = .021), but not for future IPV (β = .002, p = .709) across follow-up points. Significant effects were also found for secondary outcomes of depression severity (β = −.006, p = .052), empowerment (β = .155, p = .022), and resource gain (β = .158, p = .036). Additionally, more women in HOPE + SSSs were employed at 3- and 6-month follow-up compared to those in SSSs only. Results showed the acceptability and feasibility of adding IPV-related treatment to standard services. They also suggested that HOPE may be a promising treatment for residents of battered women’s shelters. Further research with a larger sample, utilizing more diverse shelter settings and a more rigorous control condition, is needed to confirm these findings.

No abstract

Background HIV and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) are interconnected public health problems. However, few HIV prevention interventions address the unique needs of IPV survivors in shelter and none of the CDC’s best-evidence risk reduction interventions adequately explore the complex relationship between IPV and HIV risk. Although battered women’s shelters provide a safe and supportive environment for women in crisis, most do not offer HIV risk reduction services or sexual safety planning. Methods This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and initial efficacy of a rapid HIV-testing and brief risk prevention intervention developed for residents of battered women’s shelters. The Safe Alternatives For Empowered sex for intimate partner violence (IPV) intervention (SAFE-IPV) was evaluated in an open trial (N = 98). Participants were assessed with a series of standardized interviews and self-reports at screening and three-months after leaving shelter. Results Few eligible participants declined SAFE-IPV and participants who received SAFE-IPV reported high levels of satisfaction. No participants in the open trial tested positive for HIV. However, participants reported significantly fewer unprotected vaginal and anal sexual occasions and increased intentions to engage in risk preventative behaviors three months after leaving shelter compared to the three months prior to shelter. Additionally, participants reported significant improvements on HIV-risk factors addressed in SAFE-IPV at three-month follow-up (i.e., reduced emotional, physical and sexual harm by abuser, posttraumatic stress symptoms, hazardous alcohol use, and drug use). Discussion Results extend prior research on HIV prevention with women with IPV, demonstrating the acceptability, feasibility and initial efficacy of SAFE-IPV within battered women’s shelter settings.

Our results support the concept that sex differences in health status outcomes may be better explained by patient's gender-related characteristics, than biological sex characteristics. More importantly, the GI offers a pragmatic composite score to assess the effects of psychosocial factors that researchers interested in measuring gender could use in studies of subjects with CAD.