How accurate and useful are published UK prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV)? Rapid review and methodological commentary

Abstract

Purpose This paper aims to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK general population and in the low-risk clinical population and to identify the methodological challenges presented by this task. Design/methodology/approach A rapid review of the evidence was conducted. Data were extracted with the help of pre-designed tools and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. The data extracted was both qualitative and quantitative. Findings In the general population, crime survey data gave a range of past-year IPV prevalence from 1.8% to 4.5%. This was higher in women than men (2.5%–6.3% vs 0.9%–2.7%). In both the general and low-risk clinical population, there was little data on pregnant women or gay men and lesbians. No significant relationships between IPV and ethnicity were found. Different surveys used different definitions of IPV and domestic violence, making it difficult to give an accurate estimate. There were also problems with data accuracy. Originality/value This research is original and contributes to the knowledge about IPV screening and if prevalence studies help.

Australian Trends in Academic Literature Concerned With Family and Domestic Violence Perpetrators: A Bibliometric Literature Review

“…Domestic violence researchers/authors in Australia are predominantly qualitative in method and may not have the breadth of research skills to analyze and generate evidence that is generalizable when studying complex multifaceted problems. We raise concerns about the positive correlation between the growth in FADV research and the increased FADV incidence and prevalence rates in Australia (Ali et al, 2021;Bott et al, 2019;Elghossain et al, 2019;Vicard-Olagne et al, 2021). This guided us to take a deeper look at the highest cited FADV publications with a focus on perpetrator, over time.…”

“…Academic research on family and domestic violence (FADV) in Australia, and internationally, has increased exponentially over the last half-century (Ali et al, 2021; Bott et al, 2019; Elghossain et al, 2019; McLaren, Fischer, & Zannettino, 2020). Academic interests into perpetrator interventions have likewise increased.…”

“…Authors have shown that FADV incidence and prevalence rates over the last half-century, universally, have continued to rise (Ali et al, 2021; Bott et al, 2019; Elghossain et al, 2019; Vicard-Olagne et al, 2021). This is despite increased research activity, knowledge generation, and service developments in responding to FADV and in interventions with perpetrators.…”

To stay silent or to blow the whistle? Bystander’s intervening acts when witnessing intimate partner violence (IPV)

“…Domestic abuse includes psychological, physical, sexual, financial and emotional abuse (Home Office, 2013) and can manifest in different forms, including intimate partner violence (IPV) or “partner violence”, which involves a current or former intimate partner (Feder et al , 2009). The prevalence of IPV is difficult to determine due to inconsistencies in definitions, underreporting and examination of different populations in different societies (Ali et al , 2021; Wong and Mellor, 2014). In the UK, between 2018 and 2019, it was reported that 1.6 million women and 786,000 men, aged 16–74 years experienced domestic abuse [Office for National Statistics (ONS), 2020].…”

“…On average, every week in the UK two women are killed by a current or former partner (McLeod, 2018). IPV is a worldwide health problem resulting in physical injuries [sustained from physical and sexual abuse; World Health Organisation (WHO), 2013] and psychological harm such as depression, anxiety, PTSD, substance abuse and suicide (Ali et al , 2021; Potter et al , 2021). Given these effects, it is important to understand how individuals in society can become active bystanders to prevent and intervene when witnessing violence (Pagliaro et al , 2020).…”