Association of Intimate Partner Violence and Childhood Sexual Abuse with Cancer-Related Well-Being in Women

Abstract

Background: Limited evidence suggests that intimate partner violence (IPV) may be associated with poorer cancer outcomes. We hypothesized that timing and type of IPV as well as childhood sexual abuse (CSA) may negatively affect depression, perceived stress, and cancer-related well-being. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of women diagnosed with either breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer in the prior 12 months included in the Kentucky Cancer Registry. Consenting women were interviewed by phone (n = 553). Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to determine the association between IPV (37% lifetime prevalence) and type, timing, and the range of correlated cancer-related well-being indicators, adjusting for confounding factors. Results: IPV ( p = 0.002) and CSA ( p = 0.03) were associated with the six correlated well-being indicators. Specifically, lifetime and current IPV were associated with lower Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer (FACT-B) ( p = 0.006) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-SP) ( p = 0.03) scores, higher perceived stress at diagnosis ( p = 0.006), and depressive symptom scores at diagnosis ( p < 0.0001), whereas CSA was associated with lower FACT-B ( p = 0.02), increased number of comorbid conditions ( p = 0.03), and higher current stress levels ( p = 0.04). Current and past IPV, as well as psychologic abuse, were associated with poorer well-being among women with a recent cancer diagnosis. Conclusions: Our results provide evidence that both IPV and CSA negatively influence cancer-related well-being indicators. These data suggest that identification of lifetime IPV and other stressors may provide information that healthcare providers can use to best support and potentially improve the well-being of female cancer patients.

Violence against Women with Breast Neoplasms

“…When comparing the level of violence found in this study (35.08%) in the present study, lower levels were found by Modesitt et al [12] and Coker et al [36] where the rate of women with breast cancer and who have suffered some form of violence during life was 22.44% and 36%, respectively. However, as it was seen in these studies [12,36], it is not possible to make comparisons and concrete statements about violence being a factor to the diagnosis of breast cancer.…”

“…However, as it was seen in these studies [12,36], it is not possible to make comparisons and concrete statements about violence being a factor to the diagnosis of breast cancer. However, we can say that violence brings physical, mental and emotional consequences for the lives of these women, causing the emotional and psychological factor to be affected in such a way that ends up increasing stress factors.…”

Intimate partner violence and women’s cancer quality of life

“…Intimate partner violence (IPV) has mental [1] and physical [2] health effects yet little research has investigated the impact of IPV on cancer-related quality of life (QOL) during cancer treatment and recovery [3, 4]. As defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, intimate partner violence (IPV) includes physical violence, sexual violence, stalking and psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former intimate partner [5].…”

“…IPV has consistently been associated with increased self-perceived stress including symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) among women with [4] and without cancer [8]. Convincing epidemiologic and clinical evidence now links chronic stress, depression and cancer progression [9–11].…”

“…In an earlier analyses among 553 women diagnosed with cancer [4], lifetime IPV was significantly associated with more symptoms of both depression and self-perceived stress at diagnosis. Further, IPV was associated with lower scores indicating poorer cancer quality of life within the domains of social / family and emotional functioning as measured within subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale.…”