Individual, household, and community level factors associated with intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria: a cross-sectional analysis of the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

Abstract

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a public health and human rights concern globally, with significant consequences for women’s health and wellbeing. Understanding the factors associated with IPV is essential for targeted interventions in Nigeria. This study examined individual, household, and community-level factors associated with intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria using the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS).

Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed a weighted sample of 20,202 Nigerian women aged 15–49 years, extracted from the 2024 NDHS datasets. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable logistic regression were conducted using Stata 17. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.

Results

The prevalence of IPV was 23.4% (95% CI: 22.4%–24.4%). Women aged 20–29 years had higher odds of IPV compared to adolescents. A non-linear association with education was observed: primary and secondary education were associated with increased IPV, whereas higher education was not significant. Marital status showed the strongest association, with markedly higher odds among separated (AOR = 6.02, 95% CI: 4.51–8.02) and divorced women (AOR = 5.56, 95% CI: 3.86–8.02) as well as among those cohabiting. Higher wealth was protective, whereas larger household size increased IPV risk. Muslim women had lower odds of IPV compared to Catholics (AOR = 0.45, 95% CI: 0.37–0.57). Significant regional disparities were observed, with lower odds of IPV in the North East and South West compared with the North West.

Conclusion

IPV affects nearly one in four women in Nigeria and is associated with factors across multiple levels. Marital status, education, and wealth emerged as key correlates, with clear regional disparities. These findings support targeted interventions for high-risk groups, particularly separated and divorced women, alongside economic strengthening and context-specific strategies addressing harmful gender norms.

Background

Intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a major global public health and human rights challenge, disproportionately affecting women in low- and middle-income countries and posing a significant barrier to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 5 (Gender Equality) [1, 2]. Globally, approximately 27% of ever-partnered women aged 15–49 years have experienced physical or sexual intimate partner violence in their lifetime, with the burden disproportionately higher in low- and middle-income regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa [3, 4]. IPV refers to any behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual, psychological, or emotional harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviours perpetrated by a current or former partner [5].

In sub-Saharan Africa, the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) remains high, ranging from 33% to 44% among women of reproductive age [3, 6, 7]. This burden is driven by entrenched patriarchal norms, gender inequality, economic dependency, and weak enforcement of protective legislation [4]. Evidence from the region further indicates that IPV is shaped by several individual and contextual factors, including marital status, socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and marked regional disparities [6–8].

The consequences of IPV are extensive and affect Women’s health and well-being. Evidence shows that women exposed to IPV are at increased risk of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicidal ideation, and substance use disorders [9, 10]. IPV is also strongly associated with adverse reproductive outcomes, including unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, poor antenatal care utilization, and maternal complications [11]. Beyond these direct health effects, IPV diminishes women’s quality of life, impairs their social and economic participation, and places a substantial burden on health systems and society [10].

In Nigeria, IPV remains a persistent public health concern. National survey data indicate that approximately one in four women has experienced lifetime IPV, with emotional violence being the most commonly reported form [12, 13]. Evidence also demonstrates substantial variations in IPV across regions and communities [14, 15]. Recent evidence from sub-Saharan Africa also demonstrates that women’s vulnerability to IPV is influenced by multiple socioeconomic and contextual factors, including educational attainment, household wealth, and relationship characteristics, underscoring the need for context-specific interventions [8]. Similarly, nationally representative studies in Nigeria have shown that marital structure, partner-related characteristics, and prevailing social norms influence women’s experience of IPV [14, 16]. Despite legal frameworks such as the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act [17], enforcement remains weak, and harmful social norms continue to normalize violence within intimate relationships, highlighting the need for updated evidence to inform effective prevention strategies.

The determinants of IPV are best understood through an ecological framework, which recognizes that vulnerability is shaped by interacting factors at the individual, household, and community levels [18]. At the individual level, factors such as age, education, employment, and gender norms influence vulnerability; at the household level, marital status, wealth, and partner characteristics are important; while at the community level, residence, cultural norms, and regional disparities shape exposure to and acceptance of violence [18]. Although previous Nigerian studies have identified important determinants of IPV, many have been limited by regional scope, smaller sample sizes, reliance on older datasets, or examination of factors at a single level [19–22]. Consequently, there remains limited evidence using the most recent nationally representative 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey data to simultaneously examine individual-, household, and community-level factors associated with IPV among women of reproductive age in Nigeria [15]. Recent evidence from sub-Saharan Africa further supports the value of adopting multilevel approaches to understanding IPV [8].

Therefore, this study used data from the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) to examine the individual, household, and community-level factors associated with intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria. By providing updated nationally representative evidence on the multilevel determinants of IPV, the study contributes to the growing body of knowledge needed to inform targeted interventions, strengthen context-specific policies, and support progress toward achieving Sustainable Development Goal 5 (SDG 5) on gender equality and the elimination of violence against women.

Methodology

Study setting, study design, and data source

This study was conducted in Nigeria, a West African country comprising six geopolitical zones (North West, North East, North Central, South East, South South, and South West). We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS), the most recent nationally representative survey at the time of this study. The 2024 NDHS was conducted by the National Population Commission in partnership with ICF under the DHS Program. It provides comprehensive data on population health, including reproductive health, maternal health, and gender-based violence indicators. The survey is a cross-sectional, population-based household survey designed to generate nationally and regionally representative estimates.

Study population, sample size, and sampling procedure

The study included women aged 15–49 years who participated in the domestic violence module of the NDHS 2024. We analyzed a weighted sample of 20,202 women of reproductive age. The NDHS used a stratified two-stage cluster sampling design. In the first stage, enumeration areas (EAs) were selected using probability proportional to size. In the second stage, households were systematically selected within each EA. One eligible woman per selected household was interviewed for the domestic violence module. Sampling weights were applied to ensure representativeness at national and subnational levels.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Women aged 15–49 years who were currently or formerly in a union and had complete information on intimate partner violence (IPV) variables were included. Women who had never been in a union or had missing IPV data were excluded from the analysis.

Research instrument and data collection methods

Data were collected using standardized questionnaires developed under the DHS Program. The women’s questionnaire and the domestic violence module were used for this study.

The domestic violence module was administered by trained female interviewers in a private setting, in line with international ethical guidelines for research on violence against women, to ensure confidentiality and minimize reporting bias [12, 13].

Outcome variable

The outcome variable was intimate partner violence (IPV), derived from the NDHS domestic violence module. IPV was measured using DHS pre-coded composite variables representing three forms of violence:

• Emotional violence (d104)

• Physical violence (derived from d106 and d107)

• Sexual violence (d108)

The variable d104 captures emotional violence and is constructed from items assessing humiliation, threats, and insults (d103 series). Physical violence was defined by combining less severe (d106: d105a–c, j) and severe (d107: d105d–f) physical acts. Sexual violence (d108) captures forced sexual acts (d105h–k).

Each variable was coded as binary (1 = ever experienced, 0 = never experienced), consistent with DHS coding. A composite IPV variable was generated and coded as 1 if a woman reported experiencing at least one of emotional, physical, or sexual violence, ever and in the 12 months preceding the survey and 0 otherwise.

This approach is consistent with DHS-based studies on IPV [23].

Independent variables

We selected independent variables based on existing literature on intimate partner violence in Nigeria and grouped them into individual-, household-, and community-level factors [14, 15].

Variable	Category
Individual-level Factors
Age (years)	(1) 15–19, (2) 20–24, (3) 25–29, (4) 30–34, (5) 35–39, (6) 40–44, (7) 45–49
Education	(1) No education, (2) Primary (3) Secondary, (4) Higher
Marital Status	(1) Married, (2) Living with partner, (3) Widowed, (4) Divorced, (5) Separated/No longer living together
Religion	(1) Catholic (2) Other Christians (3) Islam (4) Traditional (5) Others
Working status	(1) Not working (2) Working
Household-level Factors
Wealth index	(1) Poorest (2) Poorer (3) Middle (4) Richer (5) Richest
Sex of household head	(1) Male-headed (2) Female-headed
Household size	(1) Small (1–3) (2) Medium (4–6) (3) Large (7–9) (4) Very large (10+)
Community-level Factors
Residence	(1) Urban (2) Rural
Region	(1) North West (2) North East (3) North Central (4) South East (5) South South (6) South West

Data analysis

Data analysis was conducted using Stata version 17. To account for the complex sampling design, sampling weights specific to domestic violence module were applied (d005/1,000,000). The survey design was specified using the svy command, incorporating clustering (v021), and stratification (v022). Frequencies and percentages were used to describe respondents’ characteristics and IPV prevalence. Weighted prevalence estimates with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the survey (svy) commands. Associations between independent variables and IPV were assessed using the Pearson chi-square test. Variables with p < 0.05 were considered for multivariable analysis. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to identify factors independently associated with IPV. Adjusted odds ratios (AORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The final model included variables that were statistically significant at the bivariate level and those identified as important in the literature [24, 25].

Multicollinearity among independent variables was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF). All variables had VIF values below 5, with a mean VIF of 2.35, indicating no evidence of significant multicollinearity among predictors.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for the NDHS was obtained from the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria and the ICF Institutional Review Board. Permission to use the dataset was granted by the DHS Program. The dataset is anonymized, with no identifiable personal information, ensuring confidentiality and compliance with international ethical standards.

Results

A total of 20,202 women of reproductive age were included in the study. The largest proportion was aged 25–29 years (19.5%), followed by 30–34 years (18.53%), while those aged 45–49 years (10.7%) were least represented. About 43% had no formal education, while 32.18% had secondary education and 12.32% had higher education. More than four-fifths were currently married (89.08%), and 66.37% were Muslims. About 64% were currently working, and 56.76% resided in rural areas. Over two-fifths (40.98%) were poor, and about 35% were from the North West (Table 1).

Table 1.

Background characteristics of study participants, NDHS 2024 (N = 20,202)

Variable	Category	Frequency (n)	Percentage (%)
Outcome
Intimate Partner Violence	No IPV	15,474	76.60
	Experienced IPV	4728	23.40
Individual Factors
Age (years)	15–19	1,060	5.25
	20–24	3,023	14.96
	25–29	3,939	19.50
	30–34	3,743	18.53
	35–39	3,408	16.87
	40–44	2,867	14.19
	45–49	2,162	10.70
Education	No education	8,613	42.63
	Primary	2,600	12.87
	Secondary	6,501	32.18
	Higher	2,488	12.32
Marital Status	Married	17,995	89.08
	Living with partner	881	4.36
	Widowed	614	3.04
	Divorced	322	1.59
	Separated/No longer living together	390	1.93
Religion	Catholic	1,483	7.34
	Other Christians	6,020	29.80
	Islam	12,601	62.37
	Traditional	92	0.46
	Others	5	0.03
Working status	Not working	7,340	36.34
	Working	12,861	63.66
Household Factors
Wealth index	Poorest	4,100	20.29
	Poorer	4,180	20.69
	Middle	4,021	19.90
	Richer	3,868	19.14
	Richest	4,033	19.97
Sex of household head	Male-headed	17,452	86.38
	female-headed	2,750	13.62
Household size	Small (1–3)	4,185	20.72
	Medium (4–6)	8,405	41.60
	Large (7–9)	4,203	20.81
	Very large (10+)	3,409	16.87
Community Factors
Residence	Urban	8,736	43.24
	Rural	11,466	56.76
Region	North West	7,015	34.73
	North East	3,308	16.37
	North Central	3,660	18.12
	South East	1,478	7.32
	South South	1,955	9.67
	South West	2,786	13.79

Values are presented as frequencies (n) and percentages (%)

The prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) was 23.4% (95% CI: 22.4%–24.4%), while 76.6% reported no experience of IPV. IPV was a composite of emotional violence (19%), physical violence (13%), and sexual violence (3.8%) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1.

Prevalence of emotional, physical, sexual, and overall intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria, NDHS 2024

Bivariate analysis showed significant associations between IPV and age, education, marital status, wealth index, religion, working status, household head, and region (p < 0.05). Residence and household size were not significantly associated with IPV (Table 2).

Table 2.

Bivariate analysis of factors associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) among women of reproductive age in Nigeria, NDHS 2024 (N = 20,202)

Explanatory Variables	N	No IPV (n = 15,474)		IPV (n = 4,728)		p- value
		%	CI	%	CI
Age in 5-year groups
15–19	1,060	84.5	[81.5,87.0]	15.5	[13.0,18.5]	< 0.001
20–24	3,023	79.1	[77.1,81.0]	20.9	[19.0,22.9]
25–29	3,940	74.8	[72.9,76.6]	25.2	[23.4,27.1]
30–34	3,743	75.6	[73.8,77.2]	24.4	[22.8,26.2]
35–39	3,408	75.0	[72.9,76.9]	25.0	[23.1,27.1]
40–44	2,867	76.6	[74.3,78.7]	23.4	[21.3,25.7]
45–49	2,162	76.9	[74.2,79.4]	23.1	[20.6,25.8]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Highest educational level
no education	8,613	80.8	[79.2,82.3]	19.2	[17.7,20.8]	< 0.001
primary	2,600	70.8	[68.5,73.1]	29.2	[26.9,31.5]
secondary	6,501	72.1	[70.7,73.4]	27.9	[26.6,29.3]
higher	2,488	79.8	[77.8,81.6]	20.2	[18.4,22.2]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Wealth index combined
poorest	4,100	78.8	[76.5,80.9]	21.2	[19.1,23.5]	0.017
poorer	4,181	76.8	[74.4,79.0]	23.2	[21.0,25.6]
middle	4,021	74.6	[72.7,76.5]	25.4	[23.5,27.3]
richer	3,868	75.0	[73.2,76.7]	25.0	[23.3,26.8]
richest	4,034	77.7	[75.9,79.3]	22.3	[20.7,24.1]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Current marital status
married	17,996	78.5	[77.5,79.5]	21.5	[20.5,22.5]	< 0.001
living with partner	881	65.2	[61.7,68.5]	34.8	[31.5,38.3]
widowed	614	83.3	[79.6,86.5]	16.7	[13.5,20.4]
divorced	322	43.3	[34.3,52.7]	56.7	[47.3,65.7]
no longer living together/separated	390	32.5	[27.4,38.2]	67.5	[61.8,72.6]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Religion
catholic	1,484	65.2	[62.3,68.1]	34.8	[31.9,37.7]	< 0.001
other christian	6,021	69.5	[67.9,70.9]	30.5	[29.1,32.1]
islam	12,601	81.4	[80.1,82.7]	18.6	[17.3,19.9]
traditionalist	92	67.6	[52.5,79.7]	32.4	[20.3,47.5]
other	5	59.4	[25.0,86.5]	40.6	[13.5,75.0]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Respondent currently working
Not working	7,341	78.0	[76.4,79.6]	22.0	[20.4,23.6]	0.0165
Working	12,862	75.8	[74.6,76.9]	24.2	[23.1,25.4]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Sex of household head
Male-headed	17,452	77.6	[76.5,78.6]	22.4	[21.4,23.5]	< 0.001
Female-headed	2,751	70.2	[68.1,72.3]	29.8	[27.7,31.9]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
House-hold size
Small (1–3)	4,185	77.3	[75.8,78.7]	22.7	[21.3,24.2]	0.0715
Medium (4–6)	8,405	75.9	[74.7,77.2]	24.1	[22.8,25.3]
Large (7–9)	4,203	75.5	[73.5,77.3]	24.5	[22.7,26.5]
Very large (10+)	3,409	78.7	[76.0,81.1]	21.3	[18.9,24.0]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Zone (code are as per sample frame)
north west	7,015	79.1	[77.2,80.8]	20.9	[19.2,22.8]	< 0.001
north east	3,308	82.8	[80.3,85.1]	17.2	[14.9,19.7]
north central	3,660	74.7	[72.3,77.0]	25.3	[23.0,27.7]
south east	1,478	67.4	[64.6,70.0]	32.6	[30.0,35.4]
south south	1,955	64.0	[61.6,66.3]	36.0	[33.7,38.4]
south west	2,786	79.1	[77.0,81.2]	20.9	[18.8,23.0]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]
Place of residence
Urban	8,736	76.2	[74.8,77.6]	23.8	[22.4,25.2]	0.4792
Rural	11,467	76.9	[75.5,78.2]	23.1	[21.8,24.5]
Total	20,202	76.6	[75.6,77.6]	23.4	[22.4,24.4]

IPV  Intimate Partner Violence, CI  Confidence Interval

p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant

After adjustment for confounders, several factors remained significantly associated with IPV. Women aged 20–24 years (AOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.06–1.60) and 25–29 years (AOR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.28–2.04) had higher odds of IPV compared with those aged 15–19 years. Women with primary education (AOR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16–1.61) had higher odds of IPV, while those with higher education (AOR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.70–1.07) had lower odds compared to women with no education. Compared to married women, those living with a partner (AOR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.18–1.66), divorced (AOR = 5.56, 95% CI: 3.86–8.02), and those no longer living together (AOR = 6.02, 95% CI: 4.51–8.02) had higher odds of IPV, while widowed women had lower odds (AOR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.45–0.77). Regarding religion, Muslim women had lower odds of IPV (AOR = 0.46, 95% CI: 0.37–0.57) compared to Catholics. Women in medium (AOR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02–1.30) and large households (AOR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.10–1.47) had higher odds of IPV. At the community level, women in the North East (AOR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.56–0.83) and South West (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.60–0.90) had lower odds of IPV, while those in the South South (AOR = 1.16, 95% CI: 0.92–1.45) had higher odds, but non-significant compared to those in the North West. Residence and working status were not significantly associated with IPV in the adjusted model (Table 3).

Table 3.

Multivariable logistic regression analysis of factors associated with intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria, NDHS 2024, (N = 20,202)

Variable	Category	COR (95% CI)	p-value	AOR (95% CI)	p-value
Individual Factors
Age (years)	15–19	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	20–24	1.44 (1.16–1.77)	0.001*	1.30 (1.06–1.60)	0.011*
	25–29	1.83 (1.46–2.31)	< 0.001*	1.62 (1.28–2.04)	< 0.001*
	30–34	1.75 (1.42–2.17)	< 0.001*	1.54 (1.24–1.91)	< 0.001*
	35–39	1.81 (1.44–2.28)	< 0.001*	1.51(1.18–1.93)	0.001*
	40–44	1.66 (1.31–2.10)	< 0.001*	1.40 (1.10–1.78)	0.007*
	45–49	1.64 (1.28–2.08)	< 0.001*	1.38 (1.12–1.77)	0.010*
Education	No education	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Primary	1.74 (1.50–2.00)	< 0.001*	1.37 (1.16–1.61)	< 0.001*
	Secondary	1.63 (1.45–1.84)	< 0.001*	1.24 (1.06–1.45)	0.005*
	Higher	1.01 (0.92–1.25)	0.393	0.86 (0.70–1.07)	0.186
Marital status	Married	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Living with partner	1.95 (1.66–2.29)	< 0.001*	1.40(1.18–1.66)	< 0.001*
	Widowed	0.73 (0.57–0.93)	0.012	0.59 (0.45–0.78)	< 0.001*
	Divorced	4.78 (3.27–6.99)	< 0.001*	5.56 (3.86–8.02)	< 0.001*
	No longer living together/ Separated	7.56 (5.88–9.72)	< 0.001*	6.02 (4.51–8.02)	< 0.001*
Religion	Catholic	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Other Christians	0.82 (0.72–0.95)	0.007	0.86 (0.74–1.00)	0.053
	Islam	0.43 (0.37–0.50)	< 0.001*	0.46 (0.37–0.57)	< 0.001*
	Traditional	0.90 (0.47–1.72)	0.749	0.81 (0.47–1.71)	0.557
	Others	1.28 (0.29–5.65)	0.743	1.32 (0.31–5.63)	0.700
Working status	Not working	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Working	1.14 (1.02–1.26)	0.017	0.93 (0.83–1.04)	0.181
Household Factors
Wealth index	Poorest	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Poorer	1.12 (0.94–1.32)	0.191	0.97 (0.82–1.16)	0.784
	Middle	1.26 (1.06–1.50)	0.007	0.90 (0.74–1.09)	0.286
	Richer	1.24 (1.05–1.45)	0.010	0.77 (0.63–0.95)	0.014*
	Richest	1.07 (0.91–1.26)	0.428	0.69 (0.55–0.87)	0.002*
Sex of household head	Male	1.00 (ref)		1.00 (ref)	—
	Female-headed	1.47 (1.31–1.64)	< 0.001*	1.03 (0.91–1.19)	0.571
Household size	Small (1–3)	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Medium (4–6)	1.07 (0.98–1.1)	0.117	1.14 (1.02–1.27)	0.018*
	Large (7–9)	1.10 (0.98–1.25)	0.108	1.27 (1.10–1.47)	0.001*
	Very large (10+)	0.92 (0.78–1.09)	0.351	1.20 (0.99–1.44)	0.058
Community Factors
Residence	Urban	1.00 (ref)	—	1.00 (ref)	—
	Rural	0.96 (0.86–1.07)	0.479	1.00 (0.87–1.14)	0.967
Region	North West	1.00 (ref)		1.00 (ref)	—
	North East	0.78 (0.64–0.96)	0.018*	0.68 (0.56–0.83)	< 0.001*
	North Central	1.28 (1.08–1.51)	0.004*	1.00 (0.82–1.21)	0.973
	South East	1.83 (1.55–2.15)	< 0.001*	0.99 (0.77–1.26)	0.927
	South South	2.13 (1.83–2.48)	< 0.001*	1.16 (0.92–1.45)	0.195
	South West	1.00 (0.84–1.17)	0.962	0.72 (0.58–0.90)	0.005*

COR Crude Odds Ratio, AOR  Adjusted Odds Ratio, CI  Confidence Interval, ref  Reference category

^*p < 0.05

Discussion

This study examined the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) and its individual-, household-, and community-level determinants among women of reproductive age in Nigeria using nationally representative data from the 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey. The prevalence of IPV was 23.4%, confirming that IPV remains a substantial public health concern in Nigeria. This estimate is consistent with previous national reports indicating that approximately 20–30% of Nigerian women experience IPV [12, 26], suggesting that the burden of IPV has persisted over time despite existing legal frameworks such as the Violence Against Persons (Prohibition) Act [17]. This persistence may reflect entrenched gender norms, weak enforcement of protective laws, and structural inequalities that continue to sustain violence within intimate relationships, consistent with recent evidence from sub-Saharan Africa [8, 27–29].

Consistent with the ecological framework, our findings indicate that IPV is shaped by interactions among individual-, household-, and community-level factors rather than by isolated determinants [18]. At the individual level, age was significantly associated with IPV, with women aged 25–39 years experiencing the highest risk. This pattern likely reflects cumulative exposure to intimate relationships and prolonged vulnerability over the life course [30]. This finding is consistent with studies from Nigeria and other sub-Saharan African countries, which similarly reported a higher burden of IPV among women in their reproductive years [6, 16]. Global evidence also indicates that although IPV often begins early in intimate relationships, its prevalence tends to peak during the reproductive years because of sustained exposure and evolving relationship dynamics [3].

Educational attainment showed a complex association with IPV. Women with primary and secondary education had higher odds of IPV compared with those with no formal education, whereas higher education was not significantly associated with IPV. This finding is consistent with evidence from sub-Saharan Africa showing that women with primary and secondary education may experience a higher risk of IPV than women with no formal education, although the association with higher education remains inconsistent across studies [6]. These findings suggest that educational attainment does not uniformly confer protection against IPV in settings where entrenched patriarchal norms, unequal gender power relations, and community-level social norms continue to shape women’s vulnerability to violence, highlighting the importance of contextual influences [8, 14].

This finding may reflect dynamics described by male backlash theory, which proposes that women’s increasing autonomy may challenge traditional gender hierarchies, provoking controlling or violent responses from partners [31]. In such settings, partial empowerment, such as basic education without corresponding shifts in gender norms and power relations, may heighten rather than reduce the risk of IPV [32]. Although higher education was not significantly associated with IPV in this study, the findings suggest that educational attainment alone may be insufficient to protect women where harmful social norms continue to shape intimate relationships [33].

Marital status emerged as the strongest predictor of IPV. Cohabiting, separated, and divorced women had significantly higher odds of IPV, with particularly elevated risks among separated and divorced women. This finding is consistent with regional and Nigerian studies [14–16, 20]; however, the magnitude of the association observed in this study underscores the heightened vulnerability of women outside formal marital unions. Cohabiting relationships may lack formal social and legal protections, increasing exposure to abuse [34]. The elevated odds among separated and divorced women likely reflect both prior exposure to violence and the continuation or escalation of abuse during and after relationship dissolution [35]. In addition, relationship dissolution may be accompanied by financial insecurity, loss of household resources, and reduced economic support, which can heighten vulnerability and limit women’s access to protective resources and support, although these mechanisms were not directly measured in the present study. These findings highlight underlying power imbalances and control dynamics within intimate relationships, where male dominance may persist even after unions end. Widowed women showed lower odds of IPV, likely reflecting the absence of an intimate partner, further emphasizing the relational nature of IPV risk.

At the household level, wealth status was protective, with women in higher wealth quintiles having lower odds of IPV. This finding is consistent with evidence from sub-Saharan Africa indicating that greater household wealth enhances women’s economic autonomy, bargaining power, and financial independence, thereby reducing dependence on abusive partners and vulnerability to IPV [6, 36]. However, the lack of significant effects across middle- and lower-wealth categories suggests that economic protection operates primarily at higher levels of socioeconomic advantage. Household size was positively associated with IPV, with larger households showing increased risk. This may reflect economic strain, overcrowding, caregiving demands, and heightened interpersonal conflict [24, 37], all of which can increase household stress and the likelihood of violence.

Working status was not significantly associated with IPV after adjustment, in contrast to findings from some studies that reported a higher risk of IPV among employed women [16, 36]. This difference may reflect contextual variation. While employment can enhance autonomy, it may also provoke male backlash in settings where traditional gender roles are strongly enforced, as some men may perceive women’s economic independence as a threat to established household power dynamics [36, 38]. Moreover, the binary working-status measure used in the NDHS does not capture differences in income level, employment quality, job security, or women’s control over their earnings; therefore, employment status should not be interpreted as synonymous with economic empowerment. In this study, the lack of association suggests that employment alone may be insufficient to influence IPV risk when broader structural and normative factors remain unchanged.

Religion was significantly associated with IPV, with Muslim women having lower odds of experiencing IPV than Christian women. This finding has been reported in some Nigerian studies [15, 16], but it should be interpreted cautiously. The observed differences likely reflect broader regional, cultural, and socio-normative contexts rather than religious beliefs or doctrines themselves. For instance, regions with predominantly Muslim populations may differ in social organization, reporting patterns, or sociocultural expectations. Therefore, attributing IPV risk directly to religion risks oversimplification. Instead, religion should be understood as a proxy for complex socio-cultural environments that shape gender relations and reporting behaviors.

Community-level factors further highlight the contextual nature of IPV. Significant regional disparities were observed, with lower odds of IPV in the North East and South West, while women in the South South had higher, although non-significant, odds compared with those in the North West. These differences may reflect variations in cultural norms, socioeconomic conditions, conflict exposure, and access to support services [14, 39, 40]. consistent with evidence that regional sociocultural environments and inequalities influence women’s vulnerability to IPV [36]. Similar regional patterns have been documented in Nigeria [40–42], reinforcing the importance of contextual influences. The lack of association between urban–rural residence and IPV suggests that violence occurs across both urban and rural settings, although underlying drivers may differ.

Overall, these findings are consistent with evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, where IPV remains highly prevalent and is shaped by intersecting individual-, household-, and community-level factors [6, 7]. Globally, IPV affects approximately 27% of ever-partnered women [3], indicating that the burden observed in Nigeria reflects a broader global public health and social challenge. The consistency of these findings across diverse settings supports the applicability of the ecological framework, highlighting the interplay between individual-, household-, and community-level influences in shaping women’s vulnerability to IPV.

Strengths of the study

This study has several strengths. First, it utilised the most recent 2024 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey, providing updated nationally representative evidence on the prevalence and multilevel determinants of intimate partner violence among women of reproductive age in Nigeria. Second, the large nationally representative sample and application of survey weights and complex sampling procedures enhance the generalisability of the findings to the Nigerian population. Third, by examining individual-, household-, and community-level determinants within an ecological framework, this study provides a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted factors associated with intimate partner violence. Finally, the findings provide contemporary evidence that can inform policies and programmes aimed at preventing intimate partner violence and reducing its burden among women in Nigeria.

Limitations of the study

This study has some limitations. First, the cross-sectional design of the NDHS precludes causal inference, as the observed associations cannot establish temporal relationships between the explanatory variables and intimate partner violence. Second, IPV was measured using self-reported data, which may be subject to underreporting because of the sensitive nature of violence, fear of disclosure, and associated social stigma. Recall bias may also have affected the accuracy of participants’ reports, particularly for lifetime experiences of intimate partner violence. In addition, social desirability bias may have influenced responses, potentially resulting in misclassification of some variables. Nevertheless, these findings should be interpreted in light of the study’s methodological strengths, including the use of nationally representative NDHS data collected using standardized procedures, which enhance the generalisability of the findings to women of reproductive age in Nigeria.

Policy implications of the findings

The findings of this study have important implications for policy and practice. Given that intimate partner violence is influenced by individual-, household-, and community-level factors, interventions should adopt a multisectoral approach involving the health, social welfare, legal, education, and community sectors. Routine screening for intimate partner violence should be strengthened within reproductive, maternal, and primary healthcare services, with clear referral pathways to appropriate support services for affected women. Targeted interventions should prioritise women at increased risk, particularly those who are separated, divorced, or in cohabiting relationships, alongside programmes that promote women’s economic empowerment and reduce financial vulnerability. Furthermore, region-specific strategies that engage community leaders, religious institutions, men, and other key stakeholders are needed to challenge harmful gender norms, strengthen social support systems, and improve implementation of existing legal and policy frameworks aimed at preventing intimate partner violence in Nigeria.

In summary, this study demonstrates that intimate partner violence in Nigeria is shaped by a complex interplay of individual-, household-, and community-level factors, consistent with the ecological framework. These findings reinforce the need for comprehensive, multilevel approaches to the prevention and response to IPV in Nigeria.

Conclusion

Intimate partner violence affects nearly one in four women in Nigeria, highlighting its continued public health importance and its implications for achieving Sustainable Development Goal 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality). This study demonstrates that IPV is shaped by factors operating at individual, household, and community levels, with marital status emerging as the strongest correlate. Higher household wealth was protective, whereas larger household size and regional disparities were associated with increased IPV risk. Using the most recent NDHS 2024 data, these findings reinforce the need for multilevel interventions that prioritise women at greatest risk, particularly separated and divorced women, while strengthening women’s economic opportunities and implementing region-specific, community-based strategies that engage men and challenge harmful sociocultural norms.

Abbreviations

IPV

Intimate Partner Violence

NDHS

Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey

SDGs

Sustainable Development Goals

EA

Enumeration Area

NPC

National Population Commission

DHS

Demographic and Health Survey

AOR

Adjusted Odds Ratio

CI

Confidence Interval

COR

Crude Odds Ratio

VIF

Variance Inflation Factor

Authors’ contributions

OF, ETA, AA Amuda, and DJA conceptualized the study, OOO, AAO, and CO performed data analysis, VEO, COO, OCO, and CMA interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript. AA Adeleye, KEM, BOA, and GSI contributed to the study design, data interpretation, and critical revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Data availability

The datasets analysed during the current study are publicly available from the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS) Program repository upon reasonable request at: https://dhsprogram.com/data/.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study used secondary data from the Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) 2024, which is publicly available and de-identified. Ethical approval for the NDHS was obtained by the implementing agencies from the National Health Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC) and the Institutional Review Board of ICF International. All participants in the original survey provided informed consent before data collection. Permission to use the dataset was obtained from the DHS Program.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.