Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration Among U.S. Adults During the Earliest Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic

  1. Maxine Davis
  2. Ohad Gilbar
  3. Diana M. Padilla-Medina

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the association between COVID-19 related conditions and the perpetration or experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the earliest stage of the pandemic.

Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected via an internet-based survey in the spring of 2020 from an online sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States ( N = 2,045). More than half of the sample self-identified as being in an intimate relationship at the time of the study (58.2%, n = 1,183) and were used in the analysis. A four-item tool was used to assess IPV perpetration and victimization during the earliest stage of the pandemic. Respondents self-reported demographic data and recent health histories, including COVID-19 tests results, related symptoms, and degree of personal social distancing. We hypothesized that COVID-19 related factors would increase risks of IPV. Descriptive, correlational, and generalized linear modeling analysis techniques were employed.

Results

COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration. Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but were denied access to testing, the odds of being a victim of psychological IPV was three times more likely than those who did not have symptoms. Respondents who reported testing positive to COVID-19 were two to three times more likely to experience or perpetrate psychological and physical IPV against an intimate partner. People who lost their job due to the pandemic were three to four times more likely to perpetrate IPV compared to those who remained employed.

Conclusions

Especially during this COVID-19 pandemic period, our results emphasize the need for an ongoing public-health response to IPV. Continued surveillance via effective screening, intervention development, and implementation is needed.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1891/vv-d-21-00005
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.08.20125914: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: Study procedures were approved by a university institutional review board.
    Consent: Informed consent was obtained from participants.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Analyses were performed using SPSS version-25.
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The results must be interpreted with caution due to study limitations such as utilizing self-reported data from a cross-sectional survey. An additional limitation is that the models in this brief report did not include key variables such as race/ethnicity. A more comprehensive model is expected to improve explanatory power and yield more precise results. These findings should not be interpreted as an endorsement to disengage in social distancing practices. Rather, these results emphasize need for an ongoing public-health response to IPV, including further investigation, funding for development/evaluation of interventions, and implementation of evidence-based practices.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.08.20125914v1 on medRxiv