Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Nov 8;18(11):e0293295. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293295

Factors and consequences associated with intimate partner violence against women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Lakma Gunarathne 1,*, Jahar Bhowmik 1, Pragalathan Apputhurai 1, Maja Nedeljkovic 2
Editor: Abraham Salinas-Miranda3
PMCID: PMC10631698  PMID: 37939106

Abstract

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a global public health issue, with notably high prevalence rates observed within Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs). This systematic review aimed to examine the risk factors and consequences associated with IPV against women in LMICs. Following PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review using three databases: Web of Science, ProQuest Central, and Scopus, covering the period from January 2010 to January 2022. The study included only peer-reviewed journal articles in English that investigated IPV against women in LMICs. Out of 167 articles screened, 30 met the inclusion criteria, comprising both quantitative and mixed-method studies. Risk factors of IPV were categorised as: demographic risk factors (23 studies), family risk factors (9 studies), community-level factors (1 studies), and behavioural risk factors (14 studies), while consequences of IPV were categorised as mental health impacts (13 studies), physical impacts (5 studies), and societal impacts (4 studies). In this study, several risk factors were identified including lower levels of education, marriage at a young age, poor wealth indices, rural residential areas, and acceptance of gender norms that contribute to the prevalence of IPV in LMICs. It is essential to address these factors through effective preventive policies and programs. Moreover, this review highlights the necessity of large-scale, high-quality policy-driven research to further examine risk factors and consequences, ultimately guiding the development of interventions aimed at preventing IPV against women in LMICs.

Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a significant global public health issue [1]. According to World Health Organization (WHO), IPV is defined as behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviours [1]. The WHO reports that one out of three women aged 15 to 49 have been exposed to IPV [2]. Therefore, women are at a higher risk of experiencing IPV compared to men, with nearly 1 in 7 men experiencing IPV [3,4]. It is particularly high for women who are married, where one in five married women experiencing some form of violence from their spouse [5]. The global prevalence of IPV averages around 30% [6]. In high-income countries, the prevalence of IPV is approximately 23% in [7], where in LMICs, such as Bangladesh, it can be as high as 75% [8,9]. These alarming prevalence rates of IPV raise concerns due to their potential for causing significant harm to women and communities.

Impacts of IPV on physical health include head injuries, hearing damage, bruises, broken bones, back and neck injuries, etc. [10], sometimes leading to fatal consequences. Specifically, the World Report on Violence and Health in 2012 reported that 40–70% of women victims were killed by their intimate partners [10]. Furthermore, IPV is found to be associated with severe mental health effects, such as behavioural problems, sleeping and eating disorders, depression, anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), self-harm, suicide attempts, and poor self-esteem [11,12]. The impacts extend beyond women’s health, with long-term consequences observed in children of IPV victims, who are at risk of behavioural and emotional disturbances [10], and broader harm to communities, including loss of productivity and increased homelessness.

Globally, there has been an increased effort to raise awareness and understanding of violence against women, including IPV [10]. IPV has been found to be associated with several maladaptive individual and interpersonal factors such as gender inequality and norms on the acceptability of violence against women [13]. Other contributing factors of IPV include lower education levels, child marriage, family violence, childhood abuse, dissocial personality disorder, harmful alcohol use, toxic masculinity, and unemployment [1316]. These factors tend to be more prevalent within LMICs, highlighting the urgent need of evidence-based interventions to reduce the prevalence of IPV and provide appropriate support for the victims [17].

Several systematic reviews have been conducted on IPV in LMICs. However, most studies have only focused on identifying risk factors for IPV [18] or evaluating interventions to prevent or address IPV [19]. To develop effective prevention and response strategies, it is imperative to understand both the contributing factors and the consequences of IPV. To the authors’ knowledge, no effort has been made to aggregate and systematically review both factors associated with IPV and consequences of IPV against women in LMICs. This study aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of this prevalent public health concern. By identifying associated risk factors and consequences of IPV against women in LMICs, this systematic review enhances understanding of IPV and assists in identifying areas for further investigation that can inform interventions and policies to assist in achieving the Sustainable Development Goal 5.2 by 2030.

Materials and methods

Registration

The RISM-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines (Moher et al., 2015) were followed in designing and reporting this systematic review. Additionally, the review has been registered with PROSPERO (Ref. No. CRD42022342777).

Literature search

A systematic review of the existing literature was conducted using three online databases: ProQuest Central, Web of Science, and Scopus. These databases are widely recognized for their coverage of a diverse range of disciplines and have been extensively used in public health research. They also include a wide range of high-quality peer-reviewed journals that meet PRISMA standards. In addition to these databases, a manual search was conducted through Google Scholar to find further relevant studies. Since there is no library index language in the databases mentioned above, individualised keywords were used for the search strategy. The search terms for this systematic review included various combinations and variations of the following words and phrases: IPV, abuse, violence, women, marital, spousal, partnered, risk factors, consequences, impacts, interventions, and LMICs.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Four main inclusion criteria were developed to select articles more closely aligned with the objective of this systematic review. A study was selected if it (i) focused on intimate partner violence; (ii) used data from women in LMICs (According to the World Bank [20], LMICs refer to those countries with Gross National Income (GNI) per capita between US$1,036 and US$4,045); (iii) discussed the factors associated with IPV and/or the consequences of IPV; (iv) used a quantitative or qualitative or mixed method research design and (v) peer-reviewed journal articles published in English between January 2010 and January 2022. Other types of publications like case studies, conference papers, dissertations, and policy reports were not included in this study.

Selection process

In this review, four steps were followed in the selection process. In the first step, all peer-reviewed articles were initially screened by evaluating the title and abstract for potential inclusion by the first author. The titles and abstracts of the selected articles were then independently reviewed by the second authors. This rigorous screening process was essential to ensure that only the most appropriate articles were included in our systematic review. Following a discussion, the discrepancies were resolved, and the articles accepted by both reviewers based on the abstracts were then retained for the full-text review. Whenever necessary, the third reviewer resolved conflicts between the first two reviewers. Finally, the first author screened the full text of the selected articles, and all articles included in this review were confirmed by all authors.

Data extraction

The initial database search was able to identify a total of 961 peer-reviewed articles, including 194 articles from ProQuest Central, 466 articles from Scopus and 301 articles from Web of Science. Additionally, 23 articles were found through a manual search using Google Scholar. These articles were uploaded to EndNote software, and the first author removed 102 duplicate articles. As a result, 167 articles were shortlisted for full-text review. After thorough consideration, the review team agreed on 30 unique articles to be included in this full-text review. Table 1 provides a detailed summary of each article. The PRISMA flow diagram presented in Fig 1 outlines the above search and review process.

Table 1. Detailed summary of selected articles including quality rating.

Authors Purpose Region Design of Study Data Source Sample Size Data Collection Method Quality
(NIH Quality Assessment Tool)
1. Barnett, Halligan [21] To explore associations between IPV subtypes (emotional, physical and sexual) and child development (cognitive, language, and motor) Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 626 mothers Personal Interview Good
2. Bhowmik and Biswas [6] To examine the relationship between attitudes of women toward accepting IPV and sociodemographic predictors South-Asia Quantitative Secondary 63 689 ever-married women MICS data Good
3. Bondade, Iyengar [22] Determine IPV and psychiatric comorbidity in women with infertility South-Asia Quantitative Primary 100 infertile women Personal Interview Good
4. Coll, Ewerling [8] To assess the prevalence and inequalities in recent psychological, physical, and sexual IPV among ever-partnered women Multi LMICs Quantitative Secondary 372 149 ever partnered
women
46 DHS data Good
5. Hajian, Kasaeinia [23] To predict the effect of resilience and stress coping styles on the likelihood of suicide attempts in females reporting spouse-related abuse Middle East Quantitative Primary 150 non-pregnant female victims of IPV Personal Interview Fair
6. Jina, Jewkes [24] To estimate the prevalence of emotional abuse in intimate partnerships among young women
in rural South Africa and to measure the association between lifetime experience of emotional
abuse and adverse health outcomes
Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 1293 ever-partnered women Questionnaire Fair
7. Jiwatram-Negrón, Lynn Murphy [25] To examine the synergistic effect of substance use (injection drug use), intimate partner violence, and HIV (dubbed the “SAVA syndemic”) on depression and suicidal thoughts among a sample of high-risk women in Kazakhstan East-Asia and Pacific Quantitative Primary 364 ever-partnered women Personal Interview Fair
8. Meekers, Pallin [14] To examine the relationship between Bolivian women’s experiences with physical, psychological, and sexual intimate partner violence and mental health outcomes Latin America and Caribbean Quantitative Secondary 10,119 married or
cohabiting women
Bolivia 2008 DHS data Good
9. Miller, Okoth [26] To quantify the lifetime prevalence of IPV among women in two rural Kenyan communities, as well as factors associated with IPV Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 873 women Questionnaire Good
10. Mootz, Basaraba [27] To quantify syndemic risk in
women and test associations among exposure to armed conflict, HIV status, and syndemic risk (i.e., IPV, mental distress, and alcohol use).
Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 605 women aged 13–49 years Personal Interview Fair
11. Pahn and Yang [28] To investigate the association between the maternal experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) and children’s behavioral problems East-Asia and Pacific Quantitative Secondary 980 Cambodian mothers who have children aged 6–12 years Data of the National Survey on Women’s Health and Life Experience Poor
12. Sanni, Hudani [29] To examine the prevalence and individual and societal factors associated with IPV among Egyptian women Middle East Quantitative Secondary 12,205 ever-married women between the ages of 15 to 49 years Data from the 2005 and 2014 Egypt DHS
Good
13. Shaikh, Pearce [30] To assess how a woman’s enabling resources and risk factors influenced
the association of her exposure to IPV
Middle East Quantitative Primary 608 ever-married women Personal Interview Fair
14. Sharma, Vatsa [11] To assess the association of IPV against women with their mental health status South-Asia Mixed Primary 827 ever-married women Questionnaire Good
15. Leight, Deyessa [31] To identify the direct and indirect pathways that link IPV to postpartum depression in women belonging to different ethnic–national groups in Israel Middle East Quantitative Primary Jewish (n = 807) and Arab (n = 248) women Questionnaire Fair
16. Wagman, Donta [32] To examine husbands’ recent use of alcohol as a predictor of physical
or sexual IPV against women within 6 months of childbirth
South-Asia Quantitative Primary 1,038 postpartum
women’s
Personal Interview Good
17. Amegbor and Rosenberg [33] To examine the spatial variability of the relationship between women’s post-secondary education and IPV Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 18,506 women 2016 Uganda DHS data Good
18. John, Kapungu [34] To examine the relationship between early child marriage and psychological well-being and assessed if IPV mediates this relationship among young women Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 969 ever-married women Data from a study estimating the
economic costs of child marriage in Ethiopia conducted in 2016
Fair
19. McClintock, Trego [35] To examine the association between controlling behavior and IPV Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 37,115 women DHS data from eight countries in Sub-Sharan (between 2011 and 2015) Good
20. Memiah, Ah Mu [36] To determine the prevalence of IPV and other moderating factors
associated with IPV
Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 3,028 women 2014 Kenya DHS data Poor
21. Oluwole, Onwumelu [37] To determine the prevalence and predictors of lifetime IPV among
women in an urban community in Lagos, Nigeria
Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 400 women Questionnaire Good
22. Rogathi, Manongi [38] To assess the relationship between IPV and postpartum depression among women attending antenatal services in Tanzania Sub-Saharan Quantitative Primary 1013 pregnant women Personal Interview Good
23. Soleimani, Ahmadi [39] To analyse the association between women’s mental health and physical,
psychological and sexual IPV
Middle East Quantitative Secondary 2091 married women Data from a population-based survey conducted in 2015 in Rasht, Iran Fair
24. Ibrahim, Ahmed [40] To assess the incidence and risk factors of IPV during pregnancy among a sample of women from Egypt
Middle East Quantitative Primary 1,857 women Personal Interview Fair
25. Ahinkorah, Dickson [41] To examine the association
between women’s decision-making capacity and IPV among Women in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 84,486 DHS data from 18 countries in Sub-Sharan (between 2010 and 2016) Good
26. Koen, Wyatt [42] To examine the association between antenatal IPV and subsequent low birth weight in a South African birth cohort Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 263 mothers Data from the
Drakenstein Child Lung Health Study (DCLHS)
Good
27. Sabri, Renner [43] To examine risk factors for severe physical intimate partner violence (IPV) and related injuries South-Asia Quantitative Secondary 64704 ever-married women Data from 2005–2006 India National Family
Health Survey
Good
28. Kouyoumdjian, Calzavara [44] To quantify the association between IPV and incident HIV infection in women Sub-Saharan Quantitative Secondary 10252 sexually active women Data from Rakai Community Cohort Study annual surveys between 2000 and 2009 Good
29. Diamond-Smith, Conroy [45] To explore the relationship between different levels of food insecurity
(none, mild, moderate, severe) and three types of IPV: physical, sexual and emotional
South-Asia Quantitative Secondary 3373 married women Data from 2011 Nepal DHS Good
30. Hayati, Högberg [46] To examine associations between physical and sexual violence among rural Javanese Indonesian women and sociodemographic factors, husband’s psychosocial and behavioral characteristics and attitudes toward violence and gender roles East-Asia and Pacific Quantitative Primary 765 women Personal Interview Good

IPV = intimate partner violence; DHS = Demographic and Health Survey; MICS = Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram of study selection.

Fig 1

Quality assessment

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Quality Assessment Tool [47] was used to assess the quality of the included studies. This tool evaluated the observational cohort and cross-sectional studies according to the following criteria: research question, study population, sufficient timeframe to see an effect, frequency of measure, different levels of the exposure of interest, sample size justification, outcome measures, blinding of outcome assessors, follow-up rate, statistical analyses, exposure measures and assessment, and study setting. In the assessment process, three independent authors rated the studies as “poor”, “fair”, or “good” based on the criteria described in the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. The articles that met less than six criteria were classified as “poor”, those that met 6 to 10 criteria were classified as “fair”, and those meeting more than 10 criteria were classified as “good”. Consistency among the three reviewers’ ratings was ensured, and any discrepancies were resolved by an independent fourth reviewer. This quality assessment was designed primarily to evaluate the methodological rigor and potential biases of the included studies. No studies were removed following quality assessment. The final assessments were confirmed by all the authors and the quality assessment results of each article are presented in S1 Table.

Results

Study characteristics

A detailed summary of the 30 included studies is presented in Table 1 which includes author’s name and year of publication, purpose of the study, region in which study was undertaken, type of study design used, data source, sample size and category of participants, data collection method and quality of the study. This review refers to 30 studies conducted between 2010 to 2022 in several LMICs from five different regions, with only one study covering multiple countries from more than one region [8]. The highest number of studies was carried out in Sub-Saharan Africa (13), followed by the Middle East (6), South Asia (6), East Asia and Pacific (3), Latin America and Caribbean (1). Most of the studies (n = 29) used a quantitative approach, while only one used a mixed-method design [11]. Half of the studies (n = 15) considered primary data while the other half used secondary data, including global national survey data such as DHS data, and Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) data. The majority of studies based on primary data involved interviews with women (n = 10) and five studies collected primary data using survey questionnaires. In more than half of the studies (n = 16), data were analysed using Logistic regression models to identify the risk factors and the consequences of IPV. Because the included studies varied in design, sample size, risk factors, consequences, objectives, and locations, this systematic review provided findings in the form of a qualitative analysis rather than a meta-analysis.

Quality assessment

A total of twenty-one studies were rated as good, while nine studies were rated as fair, and two studies were rated as poor (Table 1). The works by Pahn and Yang [28] and Memiah, Ah Mu [36] received a “poor” rating due to several unmet criteria on the NIH Quality Assessment Tool. The major shortcomings of these two studies were their inability to specify and define the population correctly, and their failure to report participation rate, sample size justification, and assessor blinding status due to inherent cross-sectional design limitations. Despite these shortcomings, both studies had adequate power (n = 980 and n = 3028) and used cross-sectional self-reported opinion surveys. Hence, the authors decided to include them in the review. A detailed quality assessment of each study is presented in S1 Table.

Risk factors associated with IPV

Risk factors of IPV identified through this review were categorised into four groups: demographic risk factors (such as age, residence, education level, religion, marital status, socio-economic status, and attitudes toward IPV), family risk factors (including childhood abuse, number of children, and extra-marital relationships), community-level factors (such as lack of social support) and behavioural risk factors (such as depression, alcohol/drug use, controlling behaviour, and help seeking behaviour).

Demographic risk factors

This review found that seven demographic factors were significantly associated with IPV against women in LMICs. They are education status (n = 11), age (n = 9), economic status (n = 9), residence (n = 4), religion (n = 3), marital status (n = 2), and attitudes toward IPV (n = 3). The following section describes the influence of demographic risk factors of IPV identified in this review.

Education status. The results of eleven studies in this review show a significant association between women’s educational level and IPV against women in LMICs. A total of six studies found that women with lower primary education levels or no education are at a higher risk of experiencing IPV [23,29,31,38,41,44]. By analysing Uganda’s 2016 DHS data, Amegbor and Rosenberg [33] found a significant association between women’s post-secondary education and a lower risk of IPV exposure.

Three studies have found a significant relationship between IPV against women in LMICs and their partner’s education. Among these three studies, two studies demonstrated that women with partners who completed a primary or lower level of education were more likely to experience IPV than women with partners who completed secondary or higher levels of education [31,42]. Results obtained from the selected studies indicate that the years of formal education for the male partners were associated with experience of IPV for the female partners. Women whose husbands had less than 9 years of education were found to be at a higher risk of exposure to IPV [46] as compared to women whose husbands had more than 9 years of formal education. Research has also demonstrated that male partners without tertiary education are more likely to be perpetrators of IPV [37].

Age. Ten studies in the current review found a significant relationship between IPV and women’s age in LMICs. Several studies indicated that women under 30 years of age are at a high risk of IPV [8,31,39,41,44]. Women who married at an early age (below 19 years) also had a higher risk of experiencing IPV than their counterparts who married later [36,40]. However, there are some exceptions with some studies indicating that younger women were less likely to experience IPV [23,42].

In two studies, the partner’s age was also identified as a significant risk factor for IPV against women in LMICs. Memiah, Ah Mu [36], a study on women in Kenya, which demonstrated that women with husbands or partners aged over 50 years had a slightly increased risk of experiencing IPV than those whose partners were younger than 29 years. Another study showed that Indonesian women were more likely to suffer sexual violence when their husbands were younger than 35 years [46].

Economic status. Nine studies in this review showed that IPV was significantly associated with economic status, wealthier women or women with a rich wealth index reported less IPV relative to the poorer women or women with poor and middle wealth indices in four studies [8,23,42,44].

Studies also showed that women’s employment status is significantly associated with IPV against women in LMICs, with the risk of experiencing IPV higher for the women who were currently employed compared to those who were unemployed [23,42,44]. In contrast, two studies in this review determined that unemployed women had higher odds of experiencing IPV as compared to their counterparts [35,38]. When investigating inconsistencies related to employment status and IPV, it was found that educational disparities may contribute to the inconsistent results observed across different studies. Most of the women who were included in the studies that revealed that employed women were at increased risk of IPV had a primary education or no education. Conversely, most of the women who participated in studies showing that working women are less likely to develop IPV had tertiary or post-secondary education.

The financial stability of women is associated with their ability to make their own decisions [48]. It was demonstrated by two studies that IPV occurs more frequently among women who have decision-making capacity [42,46], while only one study considering 46 LMICs [8] found empowered women were less likely to experience IPV.

Residence. The relationship between residential area and risk of IPV was examined in three of the included studies, with findings indicating that living in rural area was associated with a higher risk of experiencing IPV among women [6,8]. Furthermore, among Indian women, it was observed that living in mega cities reduced the likelihood of IPV-related injuries by 29% compared to those living in rural areas [43].

Religion. Two studies on women in Sub-Saharan Africa region found that women belonging to other religion groups, having no religion, or being Christians were more likely to experience IPV compared to those who identified as Muslims [23,42]. Contrary to this, Sanni, Hudani [29] found that Egyptian women with an Islamic religious background were more likely to experienced IPV than the women who were Christians.

Marital status. Only two studies examined the relationship between marital status and IPV. In two studies, it has been shown that women who have been separated or divorced [43] or involved in a polygamous marriage are at a higher risk of IPV [26] as compared to those who are currently married, widowed, or in a monogamous marriage.

Attitudes toward IPV justification. Community attitudes and norms around the acceptability of violence against women were identified as risk factors for IPV in several studies. A study by Sabri, Renner [43] showed that Indian women who accept violence have a higher chance of suffering physical IPV and injuries caused by IPV. In a study of Indonesian women, Hayati, Högberg [46] found that women who agreed with the “good wife obey her husband” and “a man should show who is boss” were at a higher risk of experiencing sexual violence in relation to the women who disagreed. Further, this study determined that women who justified male violence were more likely to experience both physical and sexual violence. IPV was higher among Kenyan women when they believed their partners were justified in beating them than those who felt their partners were not justified in beating them [36].

Family risk factors

Six studies in this review demonstrated that various family risk factors were associated with IPV incidence among women in LMICs, such as childhood exposure to violence, childbearing, and extra-marital relationships. Childhood exposure to violence was strongly positively associated with IPV against women in three studies [29,38,44]. The findings of a study of Nigerian women demonstrated that women who had witnessed parental violence in their childhood were more likely to experience IPV in their adult lives [37]. Moreover, among ever-married Indian women exposure to violence in childhood was significantly related to physical violence by their husbands [43]. Another study reported that Kenyan women exposed to violence in their girlhood were at a greater risk of experiencing IPV than those who were not [26].

Two studies also recognized having extra partner relationships as a risk factor for IPV against women in LMICs [23,38]. These two studies found that women who had multiple sexual partners other than their husbands or partners were more likely to be exposed to IPV. According to Memiah, Ah Mu [36], Kenyan women who received money, gifts or any favours in exchange for sexual activity were at higher risk of becoming IPV victims than women who did not accept such exchanges. Further, the study also reported that compared to the assertive Kenyan women, those who were not sexually assertive had a significant decrease in the odds of experiencing IPV.

Another risk for IPV identified in this review is the number of children given birth by a woman. In a study of Indian women, Sabri, Renner [43] found that women with larger number of children experienced more physical IPV and IPV related injuries.

Community level risk factors

Lack of social support was identified as a risk factor of IPV in a study conducted in Israel, indicating that women with limited social support had greater exposure to IPV [49].

Behavioural risk factors

In the present systematic review, six studies identified behavioural risk factors including husband’s alcohol usage, controlling behaviours of both victims and perpetrators, and help seeking behaviour are associated with IPV against women in LMICs.

Husband’s Alcohol usage: Sabri, Renner [43] found that Indian women’s alcohol usage was not significantly associated with IPV. However, the study revealed that their husbands’ alcohol usage was related to developing physical violence and severe IPV related injuries. In addition, four studies also found that a partner’s adverse alcohol consumption resulted in a higher prevalence of IPV against women in LMICs [30,38,41,47].

Controlling behaviour. Controlling behaviour was found to be associated with IPV in several studies, indicating that women with negative controlling behaviours such as jealousy and unfaithfulness were more likely to experience any form of IPV [35]. In addition, two studies have shown that husbands’ or partners’ adverse characteristics including jealousy, suspicion, unfaithfulness, fighting with other men and emotionally and sexually abusive behaviours had also increased the likelihood of women’s exposure to IPV [44,47].

Help seeking behaviour. Sabri, Renner [43] concluded that Indian women who sought formal or informal help were more likely to experience severe physical IPV than women who did not seek any help.

Consequences of IPV

There were three types of consequences of IPV identified in various studies; mental health (such as depression, anxiety, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Postpartum Depression (PPD), and suicidality), physical and sexual health (such as injuries, HIV and unplanned pregnancies) and impacts on children (such as children’s nightmare and difficulty in child development).

Mental health impacts

Five different mental health impacts of IPV were identified in various studies; Depression (n = 8), Anxiety (n = 4), suicidality (n = 4), PPD (n = 2), PTSD (n = 2), and hazardous drinking behaviour and drug use (n = 1). The following section describes the mental health consequences of IPV identified in this review.

Depression. Depression was identified as a significant consequence of IPV in eight studies. Among them, three studies found that women who experienced emotional IPV were more likely to report depression than women who experienced physical and/or sexual IPV [14,27,29]. One study also reported that depression was higher among drug-involved IPV suffering women than in drug-involved women who did not experience IPV in Kazakhstan [25]. Furthermore, depression was significantly higher among IPV victimised women who were exposed to armed conflict in Uganda [27]. A couple of studies demonstrated that married women who experienced IPV had higher odds of having depression symptoms [11,40].

Anxiety. Four studies in this review identified a positive association between IPV and anxiety among women in LMICs. The experience of IPV was associated with higher scores on the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale among infertile women Bangalore [22] and women who have experienced sexual or psychological IPV were more likely to experience anxiety symptoms [14,32,40].

Suicidality. Suicidality was reported as a consequence of IPV on women in LMICs in four of the reviewed studies. Sharma, Vatsa [11] found that married women exposed to IPV in Delhi were more likely to consider suicide than their counterparts who had not been exposed to IPV. In Kazakhstan, drug-injected HIV-positive women exposed to IPV had a 6-fold higher risk of reporting suicidal thoughts than women who did not report IPV or HIV [25]. Jina, Jewkes [24], who studied young African women, found that psychologically abused young women were more likely to commit suicide than those who experienced no violence. However, problem-oriented coping strategies and higher resilience were reported as protective factors for suicide attempts among IPV-exposed Iranian women [23].

Postpartum Depression (PPD). Two studies reported that IPV significantly increases the risk of PPD among women in LMICs. Compared to women who were not exposed to IPV during pregnancy, those who experienced at least one form of IPV during pregnancy were more than three times likely to have PPD [38]. Furthermore, women with no previous history of depression were at higher risk of experiencing PPD when exposed to psychological violence relative to women with a previous history of depression. Similarly, in an Israeli sample, IPV affected women with unplanned pregnancies were more likely to suffer PPD [49].

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Two of the studies identified PTSD as a consequence of IPV. A high prevalence of PTSD was found among IPV-affected infertile women in Bangalore [22], and most Iranian women exposed to IPV suffered from PTSD [23].

Hazardous drinking behaviour and drug use. Jina, Jewkes [24], reported that South African women who experienced physical and/or sexual IPV with emotional abuse were much more likely to engage in hazardous drinking behaviour and use illicit drugs.

Physical and sexual health impacts

This review identified the physical impacts of IPV against women in LMICs through three studies. A study by Ibrahim, Ahmed [40] concluded that in Egypt most of the pregnant women exposed to IPV reported that their pregnancy was unplanned. Further, women who experienced physical violence showed the highest risk of having adverse pregnancy outcomes including abortion, miscarriage, and preterm labor. In addition, this study identified that pregnant women who experienced IPV tended to have inflicted wounds including contused wounds, firearm injuries, and stab wounds. Sabri, Renner [43] identified that IPV suffering Indian women were highly associated with severe physical injuries. HIV was identified as a significant impact of IPV, and it is widely spread among women who experienced a longer duration of IPV and the women who exposed to more severe and frequent IPV [50].

Impacts on children

In this review, four studies examined the adverse effects of IPV on children in LMICs. One study found that South African women who had experienced maternal emotional IPV had lower cognitive, language, or motor composite scores for their children at age two [21]. Additionally, two-year-old children’s motor scores were lower when their mothers were exposed to physical IPV. The relationship between IPV and child development was not mediated by maternal depression or alcohol consumption [21]. Using data from the National Survey on Cambodian women’s health and life experience, Pahn and Yang [28] found that children with mothers who experienced IPV experienced nightmares, bedwetting, and timidity at a higher rate than those without that experience. Moreover, children whose mothers experienced physical violence had a higher rate of aggression. Two studies reported that IPV during pregnancy had adverse effects on newborn health, including lower birth weight, weight-for-age Z scores, fetal distress, and even fetal death [41,43].

Most of the studies included in this current review reported only the significant factors and consequences associated with IPV. However, associations between IPV and certain factors, including ownership of a mobile phone, the type of family (joint or nuclear), sexual assertiveness, number of children, and length of marriage were not found to be significant in some of the reviewed studies [6,25,29,36,41,47].

Discussion

This systematic review has identified several risk factors associated with IPV against women in LMICs, such as a lower level of education, a younger age, a low wealth index, rural residential areas, childhood exposure to violence, extramarital relationships, the increased number of children, norms on acceptability of violence, a lack of social support, and adverse partner or husband characteristics. The review also identified depression, anxiety, PTSD, PPD, suicidality, severe physical injuries, unplanned pregnancies, HIV, and barriers to child development as common consequences of IPV.

The association between lower education attainment and IPV emerged as a consistent finding in the current review, with the majority of studies demonstrated this significant association. One possible explanation for this association is that lower education may limit women’s economic, literacy and social resources [51,52], making them more vulnerable to IPV. Further, in many LMICs, factors such as prevailing gender norms within rural communities as well as limited access to quality education facilities can further contribute to a lower educational level among women, increasing their vulnerability to IPV [31,53,54]. Furthermore, it is believed that lower education levels may contribute to the acceptance of male dominance and control within relationships due to traditional gender norms. Further research should investigate the complex relationship between education, gender norms, and IPV in LMICs. Interventions that aim to increase educational opportunities for women and challenge harmful gender norms should be prioritized by policymakers and practitioners to prevent and respond to IPV.

The relationship between women’s employment and IPV has been the focus of numerous studies, with some suggesting that women’s employment status may be a potential risk factor for experiencing IPV [42,55]. While the evidence on the relationship between women’s employment and IPV is mixed, it is clear that economic dependence and power imbalances within relationships play crucial roles. Some studies have found that women’s employment is associated with a reduced risk of IPV [35,38]. Possibly, this is because employed women have greater bargaining power within their relationships. Thus, women can contribute in household decisions and have better control over household finances, as well as become more independent from their partners, which ultimately leads to greater autonomy [56,57]. With greater autonomy, women have the freedom to make their own choices rather than be dependent on their partners, which may allow them to leave abusive relationships and seek support [15]. However, women’s employment may challenge traditional gender norms and power imbalances within their intimate relationships, increasing the likelihood of IPV [42,55,58]. Therefore, further research considering mixed-method study design are needed to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms by which employment may influence IPV.

In terms of IPV, higher socioeconomic status is a protective factor [23,42]. This appears to be due to the fact that women with greater economic resources may have greater access to services and support, which could reduce their likelihood of experiencing IPV. Further, the findings of this study indicated that older women were less likely to experience IPV than younger women, particularly in environments where child marriage is prevalent [16,59]. A possible explanation for this could be that families in low-income nations cannot afford to send their daughters to school, increasing the likelihood of early marriage [59]. Early marriages are often characterized by power imbalances in the relationship, with younger women being more susceptible to IPV [36,40]. Younger women are also found to be impacted by social norms, cultural expectations, gender discrimination, and financial vulnerabilities leading to fewer employment opportunities, lower social status, and limited decision-making power [6063]. As a result, there is an imbalance of power within relationships, which increases the likelihood of young women being exposed to IPV. Therefore, older women may be more capable of negotiating and asserting their rights within the household, as well as being less likely to experience IPV. However, it is possible that older women report less IPV because of additional barriers, such as the stigma associated with IPV and societal expectations for long-term marriages [64]. Social norms that discourage openly discussing marital conflicts or seeking outside assistance may also discourage older women from reporting IPV incidents [64,65]. Consequently, IPV may be at a lower prevalence among older women as compared to younger women. Thus, interventions aimed at reducing IPV should be targeted at women in younger age groups, particularly those who are at risk of or have experienced child marriage. Additionally, older women also face different challenges, so interventions should also emphasize creating a safe environment for them to seek support and report IPV incidents.

Women’s autonomy plays a major role in reducing IPV, as it empowers them to resist and escape abusive relationships by making decisions about their own lives, including their relationships, finances, and healthcare [66]. However, some researchers have suggested that IPV is more likely to occur among women who have decision-making capabilities [42,46]. The reason for this could be the fact that, in societies characterized by rigid gender norms and roles, women who challenge traditional gender roles and expectations may be considered violating cultural norms, which could increase their risk of IPV [63]. Alternatively, women with limited decision-making power are more vulnerable to IPV as they have less power to negotiate access to support services or leave abusive relationships [63]. To effectively prevent and address IPV in LMICs, it is crucial to explore and understand the complex and context-specific factors that influence the relationship between women’s autonomy and IPV, such as cultural norms, economic dependence, and other relevant factors. Therefore, a well-designed qualitative or mixed-method study is necessary to delve deeper into these issues. Further, community-based programs including awareness campaigns need to be developed to promote gender equality and respect for women’s rights.

The residential area is a significant socio-demographic factor linked to IPV in LMICs. The prevalence of IPV varies from rural to urban areas, with rural women experiencing a higher rate of IPV. One possible explanation to this is that women in rural areas are less likely to have access to appropriate services and information [6,67]. Previous research has indicated that exposure to IPV is more common among women in rural or remote areas than urban areas of a country. Several factors may contribute to this, including low socioeconomic status and limited educational opportunities, which are common among the women reside in rural areas [53,68]. Additionally, in rural areas women lack access to social support and media, and they tend to accept social and religious norms that emphasise male dominance [6,8,31]. Media campaigns are identified as an effective awareness dissemination tool for women in LMICs [67]. Assisting women in remote areas with access to media and mobile networks can assist them in improving their awareness about IPV, resulting lowering the IPV prevalence.

Attitudes and norms related to unequal gender relationships are more common among women in LMICs. Based on this study, it was found that prevailing social norms and beliefs often justify IPV, which in turn results in its normalization and perpetuation. Acceptance of IPV may be influenced by factors such as gender inequality, low socioeconomic status, low educational attainment, traditional gender roles, and cultural norms that allow violence against women [9,69]. It is important to note that these attitudes can also have severe consequences for women, including physical and psychological harm, social stigma, as well as limited access to education, resources, and services. Community-based educational programs, empowerment initiatives for women, and engagement with key stakeholders including religious and cultural leaders are necessary in minimizing gender inequality [70].

In line with previous research, the current review demonstrated that witnessing and experiencing abuse as a child and childhood trauma conditions may result in a higher chance of having violent relationships in adulthood [29,71,72]. Childhood exposure to violence can result in a wide range of negative outcomes, including trauma, mental health issues, impaired social, emotional development, and interpersonal difficulties [73,74]. Consequently, individuals who have been exposed to violent behaviour as a child may find it difficult to establish trust, intimacy, or resolve conflict in their adult relationships, which may increase the likelihood of experiencing or perpetrating IPV [75,76]. In addition, the intergenerational transmission of violence theory shows that individuals who have been exposed to violence during their early childhood are more likely to continue their violent behaviour in response to conflict and stress in their later lives [77,78]. Thus, it is possible for them to repeat these patterns of aggression and control in their intimate relationships, becoming both victims and perpetrators of IPV [76,79]. A comprehensive understanding of how childhood trauma affects the development of violent relationships is therefore necessary for effective prevention and intervention strategies.

Furthermore, IPV is more likely to occur when women have more than one sexual partner in addition to their husband. The main reason may be that infidelity can cause relationships to deteriorate, leading to conflict, which in turn leads to divorce and/or separation with severe IPV [23,38,44]. The husband’s undesirable traits and troublesome conduct, such as excessive drinking, as well as negative control behaviours (jealousy, suspicion, unfaithfulness, etc.), can also contribute to impulsive reactions to verbal arguments or conflicts between husband and wife, leading to IPV [30,38,71,80]. The findings indicate that social and community-based interventions are necessary by targeting the vulnerable group of women who witnessed violence during childhood, experienced extra marital relationships, or whose husbands exhibited troublesome behaviours.

IPV has widespread and long-lasting consequences for women and families [8], leading to serious short-term and long-term negative psychological and physical impacts [81] on women as well as community. These effects include damage to a person’s health, long-term harm to children by suffering a range of behavioural and emotional disturbances and harm to communities by loss of productivity and increased homelessness [10]. The current review supports and provides evidence of these consequences, emphasizing that IPV is not only a burden for women but also for their families and the community, affecting their overall well-being and productivity. This systematic review highlights the need for interventions that mitigate IPV impacts. These interventions may include providing safe spaces for victims to seek support and counselling, as well as improving access to mental health support services [7577]. Furthermore, evidence-based interventions, such as trauma-informed care and cognitive-behavioural therapy interventions, have shown effectiveness in reducing IPV impacts and promoting survivor well-being [7781].

According to stress theory, IPV can have significant mental health impacts on women, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety [82,83]. The current review provides evidence that these IPV outcomes can lead to fatigue, disruption of daily activities, and getting scared easily [8486]. PTSD is a common mental health problem reported by women who have experienced IPV, and it can make victims feel helpless and fearful for their safety [8789]. The stress theory also suggests that the ongoing stress and trauma due to IPV can lead to long-term changes in the brain and nervous systems [90]. To cope with mental health disorders caused by IPV, some women may develop harmful maladaptive coping strategies, such as suicide [11,27,91]. Furthermore, a variety of maladaptive coping strategies may result, such as self-harm, substance abuse, hazardous drinking behaviour, and eating disorders [11,12,33,86,87]. Additionally, women with higher education levels are better equipped to protect themselves against the consequences of poor mental health, as they possess knowledge of available resources, propensity to make decisions, and the ability to cope [11,92]. To address the psychological consequences of IPV, a comprehensive program of mental health services and counselling should be provided to women who have experienced IPV. It is necessary to develop innovative interventions that emphasize education and community awareness programs in order to empower women and communities to combat IPV as well as to provide individuals with the necessary knowledge and tools to protect their mental health. Furthermore, support from family, friends, and community organizations can provide significant support to women in coping with the psychological effects of IPV [17].

A review of studies in the current study demonstrated the negative effects of IPV on women’s physical and sexual health as well as their children’s health. It has been reported that physical IPV causes minor injuries to severe health conditions, including severe injuries, and chronic pain [93]. There is a significant impact on lives of IPV victims who experience sexual and reproductive health problems, including HIV infection [88,94,95]. These individuals often experience considerable suffering as well as many physical, emotional, and social difficulties. As well as being destructive and difficult to deal with for adults, IPV also poses challenges to children, resulting in developmental problems [24,43], psychological problems (nightmares, bedwetting, timidity, fetal distress), behavioural problems [28] and even fetal deaths after being exposed to IPV by their mothers [41,43]. The impacts of IPV on children can last into adulthood, perpetuating the cycle of violence. In order to address these physical and sexual health consequences of IPV, interventions should focus on providing emergency medical services as well as developing community-based programs that promote healthy relationships. Further, providing legal protection to women who have experienced IPV may help prevent future incidents of abuse and provide a sense of safety and security [96].

In summary, this study findings revealed that IPV affects the physical and mental health of women as well as society in a significant way, and it adversely affects women’s productivity and ability to care for themselves and their families. IPV victims in LMICs need urgent assistance with more access to social support in order to improve their mental health and quality of life.

Strengths and limitations

To the authors’ knowledge, the current review is the first attempt to aggregate both causes and consequences of IPV against women in LMICs. While providing useful information about IPV against women in LMIC, the current review does have some limitations. First, this review was limited to peer-reviewed journal articles published in the English language, and studies published in other languages or in non-peer-reviewed sources were not included. Second, the focus of our systematic review is primarily on heterosexual women who are victims of IPV. Therefore, our findings may not be generalizable to individuals with diverse sexual preferences and gender identities. Third, due to the heterogeneity of the studies, it was difficult to conduct a meta-analysis to incorporate statistical methods which would provide a more precise estimate of the influence of the risk factors of IPV along with their effect size, and only qualitative analysis was conducted. Forth, the current review provides only a preliminary overview and indication of the potential risk factors and consequences of IPV but does not have sufficient data to examine the interactions between various factors (demographic, family, behavioural, and community) in their contribution to IPV. Fifth, this review only focuses on factors and consequences associated with IPV and does not include studies based on interventions. Therefore, this may not provide a comprehensive picture of the effectiveness of interventions in addressing and preventing IPV. Consequently, it is necessary to conduct properly designed research based on appropriate theoretical models to better understand the interfaces of risk factors. Another limitation of this review is the relatively small number of articles available for inclusion especially for some of the factors or consequences, which may affect the generalizability of our results. Finally, as the reviewed studies used cross-sectional data, no causal inferences can be made. These limitations should be taken into consideration while interpreting the findings of the current review.

Conclusions

The high prevalence of IPV was found to be significantly associated with a variety of demographic, family, community, and behavioural risk factors which emphasizes the complex nature of this public health issue. IPV has adverse effects on women, children, families, and society as a whole. Therefore, to effectively address IPV and it’s impact, it is necessary to develop appropriate interventions based on these risk factors and consequences. The implementation of policy driven and appropriate interventions should be guided by a thorough understanding of IPV dynamics and tailored to the unique needs of different populations. Accordingly, this study highlights the need for further research to achieve more national level up to date data and critical analysis to explore the underlying factors and consequences of IPV, which in turns may facilitate more productive, preventive and intervention efforts in LMICs, particularly in South Asia, where IPV is particularly prevalent. Effective intervention programs and interference from social advocacy groups by targeting vulnerable group of women can also be considered to achieve SDG 5.2 by 2030.

Implications for intervention and policy

As a result of this review, some implications for intervention and policy have been recommended. First, prevention policy and intervention programs can be developed to minimize the proven risk factors identified in this review (such as demographic, family, community, and behavioural risk factors) to prevent IPV. Secondly, a community-based intervention can be developed to increase women’s awareness, education, mental health, and safety. Third, IPV victimized women in LMICs can be provided more psychological support. As a fourth point, most LMICs have male-dominated societies with limited power for women, so policies need to be developed to increase women’s empowerment at all levels, which could indirectly help to reduce IPV. Finally, social support services and prevention and treatment programs need to be started at an early stage for the victims to address IPV issues by targeting the most vulnerable group of women (such as young, uneducated women with low socioeconomic background) in LMICs.

Recommendation for further research

The IPV prevalence rate was found to be relatively high in South Asian LMICs. However, this review highlights a significant gap in the existing literature, as only a few studies have been undertaken in this region despite the high prevalence of IPV. From this review, it is clear that, to date, only a few studies have been conducted to explore women’s attitudes toward IPV in LMICs. Thus, there is a need to conduct rigorous large-scale population-based studies that explore women’s attitude toward IPV in LMICs along with the risk factors and consequences of such violence on women’s mental and physical health, the marital relationship, children, families, communities, and wider society. Based on this study findings, it can be concluded that education plays a significant role in reducing IPV. Nevertheless, it is important to note that education plays a mediation role as it often indirectly related to other contributing factors of IPV, such as gender inequality, women’s empowerment, and cultural norms. Therefore, further research is needed to explore the complex interrelation between education and these factors and how they collectively influence the prevalence and consequences of IPV in LMICs. This includes exploring the path analysis by which level of education influence IPV, and how they interact with other socio-demographic determinants. Additionally, future research should focus on developing and evaluating educational interventions and empowerment programs designed to reach vulnerable individuals, families, and communities. The aim of these interventions should be to promote empowered women through education and gender equality and enhance mental health and well-being. There is also a need to conduct a large scale qualitative and mixed method studies linking appropriate theoretical model to understand the perceptions, subjective feelings, and experiences of IPV among women in LMICs, especially among Asian women. A comprehensive summary of the main results is presented in Table 2 for ease of understanding.

Table 2. Critical findings and implications.

Critical Findings
Outcome Summary
Risk Factors of IPV • In LMICs, lower levels of education, marriage at a young age, poor wealth indices, and rural residential areas were identified as demographic factors which contributed to IPV risk among women.
• Witnessing and experiencing abuse as a child, having more children in the house, and having a husband with adverse characteristics such as hazardous drinking, and controlling behaviour (jealousy, suspicion, unfaithfulness, etc.) were significant family and behavioural risk factors for IPV among women in LMICs.
• Among community-level risk factors for IPV, a lack of social support and acceptance of norms promoting male dominance were found.
Impacts of IPV • Depression, PTSD, anxiety, and suicidality were common mental health problems reported by women who have experienced IPV in LMICs.• Among LMICs, severe physical injuries, unplanned pregnancies, and sexually transmitted infections such as HIV were associated with IPV.• Having child developmental and psychological problems (such as lower cognitive score, lower birth weight, nightmares, and fetal distress) were identified as societal impacts of IPV.
Implications
Implications for practice • Community-based intervention can be developed to increase women’s awareness, education, mental health and safety.
• Provide more psychological support
• Social support services and prevention and treatment programs need to be started at an early stage
Implications for policy • Prevention policy can be developed to minimize the proven risk factors identified in this review
Implications for research • Explore women’s attitude toward IPV in LMICs along with the risk factors and consequences of such violence on women’s mental and physical health, the marital relationship, children, families, communities and wider society
• Qualitative and mixed method studies linking appropriate theoretical model to understand the perceptions, subjective feelings, and experiences of IPV among women in LMICs, especially among Asian women

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

(DOC)

S1 Table. Detailed quality assessment of the selected studies.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

The review was conducted as a part of the PhD study at the Swinburne University of Technology in Australia. The authors would like to thank M R S Sanjeewa for assisting in the initial screening of the abstracts of the articles.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by Swinburne University of Technology in the form of a PhD study scholarship awarded to LG. No additional external funding was received for this study. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB. The world report on violence and health. Lancet. 2002;360(9339):1083–8. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11133-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.World Health Organization. Violence against women 2021 [Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women.
  • 3.World Health O. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jenabi E, Khazaei S. Prevalence rate of intimate partner violence by WHO region: an appraisal by current data. Asian Journal of Health Sciences. 2018;4(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 5.UNICEF: Unicef data; 2022 [Available from: https://data.unicef.org/topic/gender/intimate-partner-violence/.
  • 6.Bhowmik J, Biswas RK. Married Women’s Attitude toward Intimate Partner Violence Is Influenced by Exposure to Media: A Population-Based Spatial Study in Bangladesh. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Gracia E. Intimate partner violence against women and victim-blaming attitudes among Europeans. Bull World Health Organ. 2014;92(5):380–1. doi: 10.2471/BLT.13.131391 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Coll CVN, Ewerling F, García-Moreno C, Hellwig F, Barros AJD. Intimate partner violence in 46 low-income and middle-income countries: an appraisal of the most vulnerable groups of women using national health surveys. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5(1):e002208. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2019-002208 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Tran TD, Nguyen H, Fisher J. Attitudes towards Intimate Partner Violence against Women among Women and Men in 39 Low- and Middle-Income Countries. PLoS One. 2016;11(11):e0167438. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167438 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Organization WH. Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence. World Health Organization; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sharma KK, Vatsa M, Kalaivani M, Bhardwaj DN. Mental health effects of domestic violence against women in Delhi: A community-based study. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care. 2019;8:2522–7. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_427_19 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kamimura A, Ganta V, Myers K, Thomas T. Intimate partner violence and physical and mental health among women utilizing community health services in Gujarat, India. BMC Womens Health. 2014;14:127. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-14-127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Delara M. Mental health consequences and risk factors of physical intimate partner violence. Mental health in family medicine. 2016;12:119–25. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Meekers D, Pallin SC, Hutchinson P. Intimate partner violence and mental health in Bolivia. BMC Womens Health. 2013;13:28–. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-13-28 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Fageeh WMK. Factors associated with domestic violence: a cross-sectional survey among women in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. BMJ Open. 2014;4. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004242 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kidman R. Child marriage and intimate partner violence: a comparative study of 34 countries. Int J Epidemiol. 2017;46(2):662–75. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyw225 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.García-Moreno C, Hegarty K, d’Oliveira AF, Koziol-McLain J, Colombini M, Feder G. The health-systems response to violence against women. Lancet. 2015;385(9977):1567–79. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61837-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ghoshal R, Douard A-C, Sikder S, Roy N, Saulnier D. Risk and Protective Factors for IPV in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2022:1–18. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bourey C, Williams W, Bernstein EE, Stephenson R. Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:1165. doi: 10.1186/s12889-015-2460-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Bank W. World Bank Country and Lending Groups [Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups.
  • 21.Barnett W, Halligan SL, Wedderburn C, MacGinty R, Hoffman N, Zar HJ, et al. Maternal emotional and physical intimate partner violence and early child development: investigating mediators in a cross-sectional study in a South African birth cohort. BMJ Open. 2021;11(10). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bondade S, Iyengar R, Shivakumar B, Karthik K. Intimate partner violence and psychiatric comorbidity in infertile women—A cross-sectional hospital based study. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2018;40(6):540–6. doi: 10.4103/IJPSYM.IJPSYM_158_18 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Hajian S, Kasaeinia S, Doulabi MA. The effect of resilience and stress coping styles on suicide attempts in females reporting spouse-related abuse. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences. 2018;12(3). [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jina R, Jewkes R, Hoffman S, Dunkle KL, Nduna M, Shai NJ. Adverse Mental Health Outcomes Associated With Emotional Abuse in Young Rural South African Women: A Cross-Sectional Study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2012;27(5):862. doi: 10.1177/0886260511423247 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Jiwatram-Negrón T, Lynn Murphy M, El-Bassel N. The Syndemic Effect of Injection Drug Use, Intimate Partner Violence, and HIV on Mental Health Among Drug-Involved Women in Kazakhstan. Global Social Welfare. 2018;5(2):71–81. doi: 10.1007/s40609-018-0112-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Miller M, Okoth V, Prigmore HL, Ressler DJ, Mbeya J, Rogers A, et al. The Prevalence of Interpersonal Violence (IPV) Against Women and its Associated Variables: An Exploratory Study in the Rongo Sub-County of Migori County, Kenya. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2022;37(5–6):2083–101. doi: 10.1177/0886260520935484 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Mootz JJ, Basaraba CN, Corbeil T, Johnson K, Kubanga KP, Wainberg ML, et al. Armed conflict, HIV, and syndemic risk markers of mental distress, alcohol misuse, and intimate partner violence among couples in Uganda. Journal of Traumatic Stress. 2021;34(5):1016–26. doi: 10.1002/jts.22740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Pahn J, Yang Y. Behavioral problems in the children of women who are victims of intimate partner violence. Public Health Nursing. 2021;38(6):953–62. doi: 10.1111/phn.12940 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Sanni Y, Hudani A, Buh A, Ghose B. Prevalence and Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence Among Married Women in Egypt. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(21–22):10686–704. doi: 10.1177/0886260519888196 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Shaikh AK, Pearce B, Yount KM. Effect of Enabling Resources and Risk Factors on the Relationship between Intimate Partner Violence and Anxiety in Ever-Married Women in Minya, Egypt. Journal of Family Violence. 2017;32(1):13. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Leight J, Deyessa N, Verani F, Tewolde S, Sharma V. An intimate partner violence prevention intervention for men, women, and couples in Ethiopia: Additional findings on substance use and depressive symptoms from a cluster-randomized controlled trial. PLoS Medicine. 2020;17(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003131 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wagman JA, Donta B, Ritter J, Naik DD, Nair S, Saggurti N, et al. Husband’s Alcohol Use, Intimate Partner Violence, and Family Maltreatment of Low-Income Postpartum Women in Mumbai, India. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2018;33(14):2241–67. doi: 10.1177/0886260515624235 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Amegbor PM, Rosenberg MW. What geography can tell us? Effect of higher education on intimate partner violence against women in Uganda. Applied Geography. 2019;106:71–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.John NA, Kapungu C, Sebany M, Tadesse S. Do Gender-Based Pathways Influence Mental Health? Examining the Linkages Between Early Child Marriage, Intimate Partner Violence, and Psychological Well-being among Young Ethiopian Women (18–24 years Old). Youth and Society. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  • 35.McClintock HF, Trego ML, Wang EM. Controlling Behavior and Lifetime Physical, Sexual, and Emotional Violence in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(15–16):7776–801. doi: 10.1177/0886260519835878 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Memiah P, Ah Mu T, Prevot K, Cook CK, Mwangi MM, Mwangi EW, et al. The Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence, Associated Risk Factors, and Other Moderating Effects: Findings From the Kenya National Health Demographic Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(11–12):5297–317. doi: 10.1177/0886260518804177 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Oluwole EO, Onwumelu NC, Okafor IP. Prevalence and determinants of intimate partner violence among adult women in an urban community in lagos, southwest nigeria. Pan African Medical Journal. 2020;36:1–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Rogathi JJ, Manongi R, Mushi D, Rasch V, Sigalla GN, Gammeltoft T, et al. Postpartum depression among women who have experienced intimate partner violence: A prospective cohort study at Moshi, Tanzania. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2017;218:238–45. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.04.063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Soleimani R, Ahmadi R, Yosefnezhad A. Health consequences of intimate partner violence against married women: a population-based study in northern Iran. Psychology, Health and Medicine. 2017;22(7):845–50. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2016.1263755 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ibrahim Z, Ahmed WS, El-Hamid S, Hagras A. Intimate partner violence among Egyptian pregnant women: incidence, risk factors, and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Clinical and experimental obstetrics & gynecology. 2015;42(2):212–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ahinkorah BO, Dickson KS, Seidu A-A. Women decision-making capacity and intimate partner violence among women in sub-Saharan Africa. Archives of Public Health. 2018;76(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s13690-018-0253-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Koen N, Wyatt GE, Williams JK, Zhang M, Myer L, Zar HJ, et al. Intimate partner violence: associations with low infant birthweight in a South African birth cohort. Metabolic Brain Disease. 2014;29(2):281. doi: 10.1007/s11011-014-9525-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Sabri B, Renner LM, Stockman JK, Mittal M, Decker MR. Risk Factors for Severe Intimate Partner Violence and Violence-Related Injuries Among Women in India. Women & Health. 2014;54(4):281–300. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2014.896445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kouyoumdjian FG, Calzavara LM, Bondy SJ, O’Campo P, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, et al. Risk factors for intimate partner violence in women in the Rakai Community Cohort Study, Uganda, from 2000 to 2009. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):566. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-566 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Diamond-Smith N, Conroy AA, Tsai AC, Nekkanti M, Weiser SD. Food insecurity and intimate partner violence among married women in Nepal. J Glob Health. 2019;9(1):010412. doi: 10.7189/jogh.09.010412 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Hayati EN, Högberg U, Hakimi M, Ellsberg MC, Emmelin M. Behind the silence of harmony: risk factors for physical and sexual violence among women in rural Indonesia. BMC Womens Health. 2011;11(1):52. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-11-52 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.National Heart L, Institute B. Study Quality Assessment Tools [https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools]. Accessed; 2019.
  • 48.Shimamoto K, Gipson JD. Investigating pathways linking women’s status and empowerment to skilled attendance at birth in Tanzania: A structural equation modeling approach. PLoS One. 2019;14(2):e0212038. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0212038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Shwartz N, O’Rourke N, Daoud N. Pathways Linking Intimate Partner Violence and Postpartum Depression Among Jewish and Arab Women in Israel. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2022;37(1–2):301–21. doi: 10.1177/0886260520908022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kouyoumdjian FG, Calzavara LM, Bondy SJ, O’Campo P, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, et al. Intimate partner violence is associated with incident HIV infection in women in Uganda. AIDS. 2013;27(8). doi: 10.1097/QAD.0b013e32835fd851 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Deyessa N, Berhane Y, Ellsberg M, Emmelin M, Kullgren G, Högberg U. Violence against women in relation to literacy and area of residence in Ethiopia. Glob Health Action. 2010;3. doi: 10.3402/gha.v3i0.2070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Massing N, Schneider SL. Degrees of competency: the relationship between educational qualifications and adult skills across countries. Large-scale Assessments in Education. 2017;5(1):6. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Nabaggala MS, Reddy T, Manda S. Effects of rural–urban residence and education on intimate partner violence among women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis of health survey data. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Oluwagbemiga A, Johnson A, Olaniyi M. Education and Intimate Partner Violence Among Married Women in Nigeria: A Multilevel Analysis of Individual and Community-Level Factors. J Interpers Violence. 2023;38(3–4):3831–63. doi: 10.1177/08862605221109896 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Svec J, Andic T. Cooperative Decision-Making and Intimate Partner Violence in Peru. Popul Dev Rev. 2018;44(1):63–85. doi: 10.1111/padr.12127 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Ali TS, Asad N, Mogren I, Krantz G. Intimate partner violence in urban Pakistan: prevalence, frequency, and risk factors. Int J Womens Health. 2011;3:105–15. doi: 10.2147/IJWH.S17016 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Heise LL, Kotsadam A. Cross-national and multilevel correlates of partner violence: an analysis of data from population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;3(6):e332–40. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00013-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Borchers A, Lee RC, Martsolf DS, Maler J. Employment Maintenance and Intimate Partner Violence. Workplace Health & Safety. 2016;64(10):469–78. doi: 10.1177/2165079916644008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Bhowmik J, Biswas RK, Hossain S. Child Marriage and Adolescent Motherhood: A Nationwide Vulnerability for Women in Bangladesh. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(8). doi: 10.3390/ijerph18084030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Gordon T, Holland J, Lahelma E, Thomson R. Young female citizens in education: Emotions, resources and agency. Pedagogy, Culture and Society. 2008;16. [Google Scholar]
  • 61.DeMaris A, Benson ML, Fox GL, Hill T, Van Wyk J. Distal and Proximal Factors in Domestic Violence: A Test of an Integrated Model. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2003;65:652–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Kabir R, Harish H, Alradie-Mohamed A, Afework S, Mohammadnezhad M, Arafat SMY. Experience of Intimate Partner Violence of Women at Reproductive Age Group in India and Their Decision‑Making Power. Advances in Human Biology. 2021;11:89–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Semahegn A, Mengistie B. Domestic violence against women and associated factors in Ethiopia; systematic review. Reproductive Health. 2015;12(1):78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Meyer SR, Lasater ME, García-Moreno C. Violence against older women: A systematic review of qualitative literature. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0239560. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Band-Winterstein T. Aging in the Shadow of Violence: A Phenomenological Conceptual Framework for Understanding Elderly Women Who Experienced Lifelong IPV. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect. 2015;27(4–5):303–27. doi: 10.1080/08946566.2015.1091422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tenkorang E. Women’s Autonomy and Intimate Partner Violence in Ghana. 2018;35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Biswas RK, Rahman N, Islam H, Senserrick T, Bhowmik J. Exposure of mobile phones and mass media in maternal health services use in developing nations: evidence from Urban Health Survey 2013 of Bangladesh. Contemporary South Asia. 2021;29(3):460–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Speizer IS. Intimate partner violence attitudes and experience among women and men in Uganda. J Interpers Violence. 2010;25(7):1224–41. doi: 10.1177/0886260509340550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Rani M, Bonu S. Attitudes toward wife beating: a cross-country study in Asia. Journal of interpersonal violence. 2009;24(8):1371–97. doi: 10.1177/0886260508322182 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Abramsky T, Devries K, Kiss L, Francisco L, Nakuti J, Musuya T, et al. A community mobilisation intervention to prevent violence against women and reduce HIV/AIDS risk in Kampala, Uganda (the SASA! Study): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial. Trials. 2012;13:96. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-96 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ali PA, Naylor PB, Croot E, O’Cathain A. Intimate Partner Violence in Pakistan: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2014;16(3):299–315. doi: 10.1177/1524838014526065 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Jiwatram-Negrón TP, El-Bassel NP. Overlapping intimate partner violence and sex trading among high-risk women: Implications for practice. Women & Health. 2019;59(6):672. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2018.1544967 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Wathen CN, Macmillan HL. Children’s exposure to intimate partner violence: Impacts and interventions. Paediatr Child Health. 2013;18(8):419–22. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Lamers-Winkelman F, Willemen AM, Visser M. Adverse Childhood Experiences of referred children exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: Consequences for their wellbeing. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2012;36(2):166–79. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Dillon G, Hussain R, Loxton D, Rahman S. Mental and Physical Health and Intimate Partner Violence against Women: A Review of the Literature. Int J Family Med. 2013;2013:313909. doi: 10.1155/2013/313909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Roberts AL, Gilman SE, Fitzmaurice G, Decker MR, Koenen KC. Witness of Intimate Partner Violence in Childhood and Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in Adulthood. Epidemiology. 2010;21(6). doi: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181f39f03 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Korbin JE, Anetzberger GJ, Austin C. The Intergenerational Cycle of Violence in Child and Elder Abuse. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect. 1995;7(1):1–15. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kwong MJ, Bartholomew K, Henderson AJ, Trinke SJ. The intergenerational transmission of relationship violence. J Fam Psychol. 2003;17(3):288–301. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.17.3.288 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Whitfield CL, Anda RF, Dube SR, Felitti VJ. Violent Childhood Experiences and the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence in Adults: Assessment in a Large Health Maintenance Organization. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2003;18(2):166–85. [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Johnson L, Cusano JL, Nikolova K, Steiner JJ, Postmus JL. Do You Believe Your Partner is Capable of Killing You? An Examination of Female IPV Survivors’ Perceptions of Fatality Risk Indicators. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2022;37(1–2):NP594–NP619. doi: 10.1177/0886260520916273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Carbone-López K, Kruttschnitt C, Macmillan R. Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence and Their Associations with Physical Health, Psychological Distress, and Substance Use. Public Health Reports. 2006;121(4):382–92. doi: 10.1177/003335490612100406 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Friborg O, Emaus N, Rosenvinge JH, Bilden U, Olsen JA, Pettersen G. Violence Affects Physical and Mental Health Differently: The General Population Based Tromsø Study. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Sagar R, Hans G. Domestic Violence and Mental Health. Journal of Mental Health and Human Behaviour. 2018;23. [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Adams EN, Clark HM, Galano MM, Stein SF, Grogan-Kaylor A, Graham-Bermann S. Predictors of Housing Instability in Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2021;36(7–8):3459–81. doi: 10.1177/0886260518777001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Chiaramonte D, Simmons C, Hamdan N, Ayeni OO, López-Zerón G, Farero A, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on the safety, housing stability, and mental health of unstably housed domestic violence survivors. Journal of Community Psychology. 2021. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Gezinski LB, Gonzalez-Pons KM, Rogers MM. Substance Use as a Coping Mechanism for Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence: Implications for Safety and Service Accessibility. Violence Against Women. 2021;27(2):108–23. doi: 10.1177/1077801219882496 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Cohen LR, Field C, Campbell ANC, Hien DA. Intimate partner violence outcomes in women with PTSD and substance use: A secondary analysis of NIDA Clinical Trials Network "Women and Trauma" Multi-site Study. Addictive Behaviors. 2013;38(7):2325. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.03.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Fleming CJE, Resick PA. Predicting three types of dissociation in female survivors of intimate partner violence. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation. 2016;17(3):267. doi: 10.1080/15299732.2015.1079807 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Karakurt G, Smith D, Whiting J. Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Mental Health. Journal of Family Violence. 2014;29. doi: 10.1007/s10896-014-9633-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Baller SL, Lewis K. Adverse Childhood Experiences, Intimate Partner Violence, and Communication Quality in a College-Aged Sample. Journal of Family Issues. 2021;43(9):2420–37. [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Devries K, Watts C, Yoshihama M, Kiss L, Schraiber LB, Deyessa N, et al. Violence against women is strongly associated with suicide attempts: evidence from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(1):79–86. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Tuladhar S, Kr K, Lila K, Pk G, Onta K, editors. Women’s empowerment and spousal violence in relation to health outcomes in Nepal: Further Analysis of the 2011 Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. The Lancet. 2002;359(9314):1331–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Giacci E, Straits KJE, Gelman A, Miller-Walfish S, Iwuanyanwu R, Miller E. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence, Reproductive Coercion, and Reproductive Health Among American Indian and Alaska Native Women: A Narrative Interview Study. Journal of Women’s Health. 2022;31(1):13–22. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0056 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Ler P, Sivakami M, Monárrez-Espino J. Prevalence and Factors Associated With Intimate Partner Violence Among Young Women Aged 15 to 24 Years in India: A Social-Ecological Approach. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2017;35(19–20):4083–116. doi: 10.1177/0886260517710484 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96.Devries K, Mak J, García-Moreno C, Petzold M, Child J, Falder G, et al. The Global Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women. Science (New York, NY). 2013;340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Abraham Salinas-Miranda

22 May 2023

PONE-D-23-08947Factors and Consequences associated with Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gunarathne,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abraham Salinas-Miranda, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear authors: two independent reviewers have concur that revisions are needed before the article can be accepted. This Academic Editor agrees with their comments and recommends major revisions including fixing grammatical issues, considering expansion to an additional bibliographic database, and the other comments

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this paper. It presents an important systematic review of literature related to IPV and draws some important conclusions relevant for evidence-based IPV interventions.

Introduction

-Overall this introduction could benefit from revision and editing to make it more concise. There is a fair bit of repetition with the phrasing and statistics around the prevalence and impact of IPV and this section would benefit from being more succinct.

-On Line 103 you note that there are not current systematic reviews of “factors and consequences of IPV against married women in LMICs” and in Line 105-106 you note “By finding associated risk factors and consequences of IPV in LMICs, this systematic review enhances understanding of IPV…” I think it is very important to be crystal clear if you were only looking at studies of married women or all women who experienced IPV?

-Can you address in the introduction why the systematic review is just focused on women and not men who might also experience IPV? This may come out in limitations but as the introduction provides an overview of IPV and it’s consequences it would be helpful to address the fact that male victims of IPV are often not included in our discussions of IPV.

Quality Assessment

-It is not clear why the NIH Quality Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the included studies. Please explain why this tool was selected.

-Please clarify that all studies were ranked using the quality assessment tool but that rankings on the quality assessment tool did not affect whether the study was included in the systematic review. I think that is what the process was but it is not clear in the current section.

Results

oLine 224-228 is sharing a very important finding but it is very hard to follow the sentence structure. Please revise and perhaps divide into two sentences to make more clear.

oLine 277-279. Please rephrase “at a greater risk of developing IPV” as IPV is not something that is developed but rather experienced.

Discussion

-Line 431-440: The analysis of how economic status and age may impact the prevalence of IPV in LMICs being linked to girl children not going to school and being married young seems a bit reductive. Are there other factors that emerged from the literature review related to risk factors and the age of victims that could also be explored such as decision making power, employment, social standing etc.?

-Line 478-481: The link between the exposure to childhood trauma and negative outcomes as an adult is well understood and there is extensive literature on this. I would like to see this section more robustly developed to cite to this literature and discuss why the findings on this from the systematic review is important

-Line 481: I would suggest making the section on more than one partner it’s own paragraph

-Line 498-500: The recommendations to mitigate the impacts of IPV from this systematic review are important. I would love to see these recommendations more built out with additional citation from other literature and more detail about what types of interventions are indicated based on the findings of this specific literature review. Building this out will be very important for practitioners who want to cite this article when proposing IPV interventions.

-Line 507-509: I would delete “potentially” from the sentence as suicide is harmful in all instances. Additionally, I would welcome inclusion of additional maladaptive coping strategies observed other than suicide.

-Line 517-518: I would suggest rephrasing this sentence as it implies that those who are HIV positive have “unbearable lives” which can be stereotyping for those in the HIV positive community and should be avoided.

Strengths and Limitations

-I welcome seeing the analysis of how the search terms focused on martial/spousal relationships may have limited the study to understanding IPV against women in that population. It would also be helpful to see here in the limitations some discussion of how the small number of articles may impact the conclusions drawn. For some of the factors or consequences that were identified they were only listed in a few of the studies included which limits the readers ability to understand these factors as inclusive.

-Also, can you include a limitation on the fact that the study only focused on heterosexual women victims of IPV? And does not seem to look at additional vulnerabilities with intersectional identities which seems important to consider in future research

Conclusions

-The conclusion section could benefit from revision to strengthen the final conclusions drawn and the call to action. The recommendation for a large-scale population based study in South Asia does not to me seem linked to the findings and discussion which seemed to focus more on the need for more nuanced understandings of the factors related to IPV and how to construct interventions as a whole. The study does not seem to indicate a lack of data—rather a lack of detailed analysis of factors. I would expect to see the conclusions and recommendations for this paper more focused in this area and therefore suggest a rethinking and reframing of the conclusion.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the revised manuscript titled, “Factors and consequences associated with intimate partner violence against women in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review” (PONE-D-23-08947). This study addresses an important gap in the literature – systematic reviews of IPV in LMICs are sorely needed. There are unfortunately several significant flaws in the author’s approach and description of methodology and results that will require substantial revision.

1.The appropriate reference for the WHO definition of IPV should be the World Report on Violence and Health (Krug, Dahlberg, Mercy, Zwi, & Lozano, 2002). The authors instead cite a WHO webpage, which itself reference the World Report (pages 2-3, reference 1) https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/42495/9241545615_eng.pdf

2.There are a number of grammatical issues throughout the manuscript that make some sentences difficult to follow (especially due to several sentence fragments and some run-on sentences). I recommend working with a strong language editor to recommend revisions to the paper.

3.The methods section indicates that only 3 databases were searched. Though this meets the most basic level of standards for high-quality systematic review, it barely does so. I have some concerns that several large databases were not included and the search may have therefore missed critical literature. For example, why were standard resources such as MEDLINE/PubMed, CABI’s Global Health, Social Science Research Network (SSRN), and CABI’s Global Health not included?

a.On page 6, line 146 the authors refer to a “manual search using Google Scholar,” but this is not described in the literature search methodology above. The fact that the Google Search did result in additional studies included suggests that only restricting the search to 3 databases could have resulted in significant missed literature.

4.More detail is needed regarding how the inclusion criteria were operationalized. For example, were studies included only if they presented data from adult women ages 18 and older? What about studies that also included adolescent girls? What about partnered but unmarried women?

5.The methods section does not describe any protocol or procedures to search the grey literature, such as searching websites for reports from multilateral and bilateral organizations and other grey literature. This omission very likely introduced bias in the systematic review approach taken by the authors.

6.In the results section, the authors summarize significant associations noted in the included studies. However, no mention is made of null results. Did all of the studies find only significant associations, or did the authors only selectively report significant associations? It seems important to note null results as they indicate lack of consistent patterns of findings in the literature.

7.For topics where the authors report inconsistent findings in the literature, it would be helpful if the authors included at least some detail to be able to assess what factors might account for inconsistencies. For example, the authors refer to some studies that found higher risk of IPV among women who were employed, but two studies found unemployed women had higher risk of IPV (lines 246-249). Were the studies from different geographic regions? Were the women’s ages different? Is there any information from the studies that can shed light on these patterns?

8.Similarly, I urge the authors to ensure the comparison or reference group is clear in their summary of findings. For example, the statements about evidence related to marital status (lines 266-268): is being separated or divorced and in a polygamous marriage associated with higher risk of IPV compared to currently-married women? Never-married women? Some other comparison?

9.I disagree with the author’s characterization of literature that assesses women’s individual attitudes about IPV as reflecting “community level risk factors” (lines 291-301). Studies that measure a woman’s attitudes or beliefs about violence reflect individual risk factors, not community risk factors. Those individual attitudes may be influenced by community norms and values. However, if the studies did not measure community norms and values and instead measured individual attitudes, that reflect individual risk factors nonetheless.

10.I also object to the author’s characterization of social support as a “protective factor” by virtue of the fact that its absence was found to be associated with higher risk of IPV in one study (lines 302-303). The two are not necessarily interchangeable. A more accurate assessment would be to indicate that lack of social support is a risk factor for IPV.

11.Similarly, the description of the findings from the Sabri, Renner study (lines 304-305) bear some consideration. Did the study find that women who had more severe physical IPV were more likely to seek formal or informal help? If so, that does not suggest that help-seeking is a risk factor for IPV. Some elaboration of the findings of this particular study are warranted.

12.The summary of the literature for “behavioural risk factors” appears to confuse risk factors with consequences. Several of the studies summarized appear to refer to what might have been mental health impacts of IPV rather than risk factors. This should be clarified.

13.I am also inclined to object to the use of the term “behavioural risk factors” to refer to phenomena like depression and other mental health issues. These are not always characterized behaviourally.

14.The authors assess study quality of the included studies and provide that information in a brief table, but study quality information does not appear to factor into the summary or conclusions. How was study quality taken into account in synthesizing research findings? Did it inform the authors in assessing consistencies or inconsistencies in the literature?

15.More detail could be provided regarding the gaps in the research – what are the areas that need further investigation? There is a very brief paragraph at the end that provides a somewhat perfunctory set of recommendations for future research. More could be said that is directly informed by the findings of the systematic review.

16.I was disappointed to find that the manuscript does not include a summary table with the overall findings related to risk factors and consequences. Table 1 provides an overview of the studies but it does not include summary findings, which seems to be the most important information.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Abraham Salinas-Miranda

31 Aug 2023

PONE-D-23-08947R1Factors and Consequences associated with Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Gunarathne,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR: Dear authors: Thank you for addressing all the previous revisions requested. The reviewers identified some revisions that still need to be made including clarifications (line by line listed below) in several sentences and the issue of behavioral risk factors equated as outcomes. Please add an explanation when is missing in the segments requested by reviewer 1 and 2 or your argumentation if you do not agree with reviewers. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 15 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Abraham Salinas-Miranda, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript was vastly improved, but there are still several issues that were identified by the reviewers in all sections of the paper (introduction, methods, results, and conclusions). Please address each of these and resubmit as soon as possible.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for the work to revise the manuscript and address the comments provided. The manuscript is improved but would benefit from further revision to strengthen the paper.

Abstract

• Line 28: Please clarify the statement “relatively high prevalence rates” as it is not clear what you are comparing this to? Relative to what? I would suggest choosing more precise language

• Line 29: should it read “within” LMIC’s rather than “among”?

• Line 39: You state “The findings indicate alarmingly high prevalence of IPV against women in many LMICs” This is confusing because it is not clear what this is being compared to? i.e. it is alarmingly high compared to what? Additionally quantifying the prevalence of IPV is not an explicit aim of this systematic review and therefore this sentence does not make sense to include in the abstract and is misleading to the study findings. Suggest rephrasing.

Introduction

• Overall the Introduction is still quite repetitive and not well organized. The topics covered in the introduction jump around significantly and it would overall benefit from additional editing

• Line 50: “IPV is known as” should read “defined as” as you are sharing a definition

• Line 61-62: “Women are at a higher risk of experiencing IPV compared to men” To make this statement the rate of IPV of risk for men needs to be cited to, as of now it’s not clear what you’re comparing to

• Line 93-96: This sentence is very confusing. Rephrase

Materials and Methods

• Line 109: It would be helpful to include more information about why these data bases were selected and why only 3 were used.

• Line 158: Please state explicitly that no studies were removed following the quality assessment

Results

• Line 242: should read “experiencing”

• Line 382: Is the reference to women from the country of South Africa or the southern part of the African continent? Not sure if south not being capitalized is a typo or not?

Discussion:

• Overall, the Discussion could benefit from revision with a particular focus on how risk factors may interact throughout the analysis. For example, I note on Line 408-410 that in the list of reasons why lower education may lead to IPV the other risk factors related to environment and access to education in the first place are not integrated into the discussion and analysis. I believe that there are many interactions between both the risk factors and consequences identified in the analysis and the paper would be greatly strengthened by including more nuanced discussion of these interactions.

• Line 438-447: In this paragraph it may be helpful to also consider why older women, if they experience IPV may not say anything or report it? What role might stigma or social norms play in less reporting of IPV by older women?

• Line 463-473: In discussion of the area where women live I don’t see discussion of economics or educational level, as they may be tied to living in a more rural location discussed though I would imagine that that could also have an impact on the risk of IPV in rural areas?

• Line 499: Was the research focused on women who have partners outside of marriage or men with multiple partners? The phrasing of this sentence is confusing to me

• Line 502 and 507: “husbands with adverse characteristics” is a weird phrasing to me. I would suggest rephrasing

Reviewer #3: The authors addressed most of the revisions adequately, including revising the introduction, explaining the methods (e.g., risk of bias tool), results, and limitations. However, this reviewer does not agree with the authors' response to reviewer #2 regarding the following:

COMMENT 1: From the previous revision: "Reviewer’s comment not addressed: 12. The summary of the literature for “behavioural risk factors” appears to confuse risk factors with consequences. Several of the studies summarized appear to refer to what might have been mental health impacts of IPV rather than risk factors. This should be clarified."

Considering the previous review comment, the Conclusion section on "Behavioural risk factors" (lines 356-378) needs to be revised. The only behaviors that appear to have some evidence for risk factors for experiencing IPV appear to be "partner's controlling behaviors" and "women help-seeking behaviors". Behaviors such as "women's alcohol use" and "psychological well-being" (not a behavior, but a mental health state) are not supported by study findings as risk factors.

The authors wrote a detailed explanation for why risk factors such as psychological well-being factors were not outcomes but risks. Nevertheless, the articles cited examined the directionality of IPV as risk to mental health outcomes (e.g., depression). For instance, in "Behavioural risk factors > Psychological well-being" (Lines 367-369), the paper cites reference 27 and 36. The data from these studies do not support psychological well-being as risk factor but as outcome as follows:

Ref. 27: Jiwatram-Negrón, T., Michalopoulos, L. M., & El-Bassel, N. (2018). The syndemic effect of injection drug use, intimate partner violence, and HIV on mental health among drug-involved women in Kazakhstan. Global social welfare : research, policy & practice, 5(2), 71–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40609-018-0112-1. This reference (reference number 27) found that the syndemic of IPV, substance abuse, and HIV increased 15.5 fold odds of reporting depression. Not the other way around. IPV was not significantly correlated with injected drugs (Jiwatram-Negron's Table 2: r=-0.047 between IPV and injected drugs). On Table 3 of the same article, victim's binge drinking was not significantly associated with depression and suicide either.

In the subsection: "Behavioural risk factors > Alcohol usage" (Lines 360-361), the paper cites reference 27 as follows: "Alcohol usage: Hazardous drinking among women was found to be significantly associated with physical and/or sexual IPV experienced by south African women [27]." This sentence must be deleted as it is not factual.

The data from ref 27 do not support women's substance abuse as risk factor for IPV. Jiwatram-Negron only reported correlation, which was not significant. Correlation should not be confused with risk factor (i.e., the word risk factor implies a directionality). When Jiwatram and colleagues discussed women's substance abuse and IPV, they used "injected drugs" not "hazardous drinking" like it was mentioned in the paper here. Jiwatram-Negron and colleagues used the lens of syndemic theory which states that these conditions act synergistically (correlated, bidirectional, interaction effects). They are part of a syndemic of IPV+substance abuse+HIV. The authors need to clarify that so they do not give the impression that women's alcohol abuse disorders increased the risk for experiencing IPV. Instead, women's substance use disorders co-occur with IPV. IPV victims use substances to numb the effect of traumatic experiences (i.e., IPV) and their perpetrators use their drinking as a way to exert further control over the victims. Alcohol use disorder may increase the vulnerability to become a victim of abuse due to their impaired decision-making. However, the study by Jiwatram and colleagues did not test that as they used "injected drugs" (correlation not significant any way).

In the section "Behavioral risk factors > Psychological well-being" (line 367-369), the following sentence was written: "Psychological well-being: IPV was found to be negatively 367 associated with psychological well being [36];" This sentence must be deleted as it is not supported by the study data. In Ref. 36 (McClintock, H. F., Trego, M. L., & Wang, E. M. (2021). Controlling Behavior and Lifetime Physical, Sexual, and Emotional Violence in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of interpersonal violence, 36(15-16), 7776–7801), McClintock and colleagues did not examine psychological well-being as risk factor. Instead, they used DHS data (cross-sectional) to assess partner controlling behaviors and their associations with IPV.

Both studies (ref 27 and 36) were cross-sectional. Causality cannot be inferred. This is a major limitation of many studies reviewed.

Perhaps, the reference was 35 and not 36. However, reference 35 was not assessing psychological well-being either as risk but as an outcome instead. John NA, Kapungu C, Sebany M, Tadesse S. Do Gender-Based Pathways Influence Mental Health? Examining the Linkages Between Early Child Marriage, Intimate Partner Violence, and 736 Psychological Well-being among Young Ethiopian Women (18–24 years Old). Youth and Society.

737 2022.

COMMENT 2: This reviewer also agrees with previous review that the section keeps mixing behavioral factors (conduct or life style or addictions) with mental health factors. Behavioral health has more to do with the specific actions people take. It's about how people respond in different life scenarios. Two people who are experiencing depression may react in different ways. Mental health, on the other hand, has more to do with thoughts and feelings (e.g., anxious trait, anxious state; depression; PTSD). Mental health issues can have behavioral manifestations, but those must be delineated in a review like this.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Abraham Salinas-Miranda

10 Oct 2023

Factors and Consequences associated with Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

PONE-D-23-08947R2

Dear Dr. Gunarathne,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Abraham Salinas-Miranda, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors have addressed all concerns.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Abraham Salinas-Miranda

19 Oct 2023

PONE-D-23-08947R2

Factors and Consequences associated with Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Dear Dr. Gunarathne:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Abraham Salinas-Miranda

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOC)

    S1 Table. Detailed quality assessment of the selected studies.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES