Mixed methods assessment of women’s risk of intimate partner violence in Nepal

Abstract

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health issue that affects one in three women globally and a similarly large number of women in Nepal. Although important policy and programmatic steps have been taken to address violence against women in Nepal over the past decade, there is still a gap on IPV research in Nepal, particularly with regard to social norms.MethodsThis mixed-methods study used in-depth interviews with women and their husbands as well as baseline survey data from a cluster randomized trial testing a primary prevention intervention for IPV to examine the prevalence and risk factors for IPV. Baseline survey data included 1800 women from Nawalparasi, Chitwan, and Kapilvastu districts in Nepal. Multivariate regression was used to identify risk and protective factors for exposure to physical and / or sexual IPV in the prior 12 months. Case-based analysis was used to analyze one of 18 pairs of in-depth interviews to examine risk and protective factors within marriages.ResultsOf 1800 eligible participants, 455 (25.28%) were exposed to IPV. In multivariate analyses, low caste, wife employment, income stress, poor marital communication, quarrelling, husband drunkenness, exposure to IPV as a child, in-law violence, and gender inequitable normative expectations were associated with IPV. The selected case interview represented common themes identified in the analysis including the wife’s exposure to violence as a child, husband alcohol use, and marital quarrelling.ConclusionsGender inequitable norms in the community and the intergenerational transmission of attitudes and behaviors supportive of IPV are important to address in intervention measures.

“I got courage from knowing that even a daughter-in-law can earn her living”: Mixed methods evaluation of a family-centred intervention to prevent violence against women and girls in Nepal

“…Most likely the reason sexual IPV is much higher at 18 months is due to underreporting at baseline and midline [28]. In comparison, a bigger What Works study that took place in Nepal around the same time as our study had much higher levels of IPV reporting: of the 1800 women surveyed from 36 clusters in three districts, 15.7% had reported physical violence, 18.1% (N = 325) sexual violence, and a quarter of them, 25.3% (N = 455) reported physical and/or sexual violence [49].…”

Prevalence and correlates of partner violence among adolescent girls and young women: Evidence from baseline data of a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania

“…It is suggested that poor households where men are the only providers, men tend to be perpetrators of violence due to poverty-related stressors that lead to fighting over spending and women’s dependence on men [53]. Equally, where women are not economically disadvantaged, men have been found to resort into violence to reassert control [54, 55]. The pathway through which poverty influence partner violence can be interpreted in the context of power relations in that lack of financial resources and financial dependency on perpetrators increases AGYW’s vulnerability to partner violence.…”

Addressing anaemia in pregnancy in rural plains Nepal: A qualitative, formative study

“…For example, women who have been abandoned by husbands or widowed and women who have been raped or cannot name the father of their child are unable to pass citizenship, as a right, to their Nepali‐born children (Allison, 2017). They are also affected by practices that seek to control, seclude and restrict them such as the custom of expecting young married women to remain at home and not to be seen out in the community (Clark et al, 2019; Ghimire et al, 2013; Morrison, Basnet, et al, 2018). Limited decision‐making powers, early marriage, early pregnancy, overwork and neglect negatively affect women's health (Adaeze Nwokolo et al, 2020; Marphatia et al, 2020).…”