Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2020 Jun 4;15(6):e0233907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233907

High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study

Abdulbasit Musa 1,2,*, Catherine Chojenta 2,#, Deborah Loxton 2,#
Editor: José J López-Goñi3
PMCID: PMC7272015  PMID: 32497059

Abstract

Introduction

Intimate partner violence during pregnancy can contribute to maternal mortality and morbidity by limiting women’s ability to receive maternal health services including antenatal care and skilled delivery care. In Ethiopia, evidence regarding intimate partner violence during pregnancy is limited, and no previous studies have been conducted in the Harari region. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence during pregnancy among women who had given birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, eastern Ethiopia.

Methods

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019 among women who had given birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia. A systematic random sampling method was employed to select 648 participants. Data were collected using an interviewer-administered standardized questionnaire based on the World Health Organization Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women survey. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with respective confidence intervals were computed. Variables with a p-value of ≤0.05 were considered to have a significant association with intimate partner violence during pregnancy.

Results

The prevalence of intimate partner violence during the most recent pregnancy was found to be 39.81%. Furthermore, the prevalence of physical, emotional and sexual violence were found to be 25.93%, 25.62% and 3.7%, respectively. Longer duration of marriage (adjusted odds ratio = 1.68, 95% confidence interval = 1.01–2.79), most recent pregnancy being unplanned (adjusted odds ratio = 1.55, 95% confidence interval = 1.03–2.34), experiencing controlling behaviour by a partner, (adjusted odds ratio = 2.23, 95% confidence interval = 1.46–3.40) and having an attitude that justifies intimate partner violence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.60, 95% confidence interval = 1.09–2.36) were associated with experiencing intimate partner violence.

Conclusion

The prevalence of intimate partner violence during pregnancy was found to be high. Pregnancy monitoring programs, which can detect and intervene with regard to partner’s controlling behaviors and women’s perception regarding justification of intimate partner violence, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy, could help to reduce intimate partner violence during pregnancy. Further, changing social norms that condone violence through advocacy and awareness creation might help in preventing partner violence.

Introduction

In the current paper, we adopted the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) definition that refers to intimate partner violence (IPV) as any physical, sexual, or psychological harm that is perpetrated by a current or former partner. It includes an intentional use of physical force (physical violence), humiliation, coercion, and intimidation (psychological violence), forced intercourse and other forms of sexual coercion (sexual violence) [1].

IPV during pregnancy has a detrimental effect on both the health of the mother and the newborn, including vaginal bleeding, [2] low birth weight [3], and preterm labor [2]. Furthermore, IPV can indirectly contribute to maternal mortality and morbidity through limiting a woman’s ability to receive maternal health services like antenatal care [46], skilled delivery care [5, 6], and family planning services [7], which are effective interventions in reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. In addition to it contributing to 38% of murders of women worldwide [8], IPV also exposes women to mental health problems, including stress, anxiety, and depression [9].

Worldwide, the rates of violence perpetrated by intimate male partners during pregnancy varies from country to country. In a multi-country study, the WHO reported the prevalence of IPV during pregnancy ranged from 1% in Japan to 28% in Peru, with an average prevalence of 4–12% [10]. Findings of a systematic review of African studies reported a higher prevalence of IPV during pregnancy, ranging from 2% to 57% [11].

In Ethiopia, evidence regarding IPV during pregnancy is scarce, and to date, no studies have been conducted in the Harari region. The 2016 Ethiopian Demographic and Health Survey (EDHS) report has indicated a higher prevalence of IPV (37%) than the national prevalence (34%) among the general population in the Harari region [12]. As there were no previous studies that assessed IPV during pregnancy in the region, it is not known if this high prevalence of IPV among the general population is true for pregnant women.

The few available studies from other regions of Ethiopia have indicated IPV during pregnancy ranged from 12% in southern Ethiopia [13] to 75.2% in central Ethiopia [5]. Differences in forms of IPV studied can be a reason for the discrepancy as some of the studies only assessed physical violence [13, 14], while others examined physical, emotional and sexual IPV [5, 1518]. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis of eight studies conducted in Ethiopia reported that 26.1% of women had experienced IPV during pregnancy [19]. However, the systematic review used studies that were conducted in only four regions of Ethiopia’s nine regions and none of the studies were from the Harari region [19].

Harari region has the highest proportion of population who reside in urban (55%) than any other regions in Ethiopia and the majority of its population are Muslim (69%) [20]. Both residency [21] and religion [22] are important factors that can affect the prevalence of IPV. For example, evidence indicated that in some Muslim countries, selective quotes from the Quran may be used to ‘prove’ that it is allowable for a man to ‘beat’ his wife [22] indicating the role of religion in promoting social control. Therefore, the generalizability of the study that was conducted in one part of the country might not provide the true prevalence of IPV in the other region as IPV might be affected by within-country differences in cultures and societal norms [23] since Ethiopia is a multi-cultural state [24].

The relationship between dowry payment and partner violence has long been established [25]., Unlike countries in Asia that offer a dowry to the groom’s family [26], in Ethiopia a dowry of cash or cattle is given to the bride’s family before the marriage [27]; this is practiced in Harari region. A previous Ethiopian study indicated that women who considered that dowry had an impact on the way she was treated by her husband and his family were more likely to experience IPV during pregnancy than those who considered it had no impact on the way she was treated [16]. Other researchers from Ethiopia also reported associations between IPV during pregnancy and a woman and her partner being uneducated [19], early marriage, partner’s alcohol consumption [14], chewing khat, [13], and rural residency [17]. Other factors that have been found to have an association with IPV include controlling behaviour by the partner [28], duration of marriage [29], and engaging in polygamous relationships [30]. However, these have not been comprehensively studied in Ethiopia, indicating the importance of conducting further studies to understand these factors and generate evidence that will enable the design of strategies that address IPV.

Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prevalence and associated factors of IPV during pregnancy among women who gave birth in public hospitals in the Harari region, East Ethiopia. In other words, the study attempted to address the following question: is there an association between IPV and key sociodemographic factors, marital and behavioural factors, reproductive and physical health-related factors, attitudes towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour?

Methods

Setting

The study was conducted in public hospitals found in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia. Harari region is one of the nine regions in Ethiopia. Harar, the capital city of the region, is 526 km east of Addis Ababa, the capital city of Ethiopia. According to the 2013 Ethiopian Central Statistical Agency’s population projection, the region has a population of 246,000 of whom 137,000 (55.7%) are urban residents. Annually, over 7,000 women are expected to be pregnant in the region [20]. According to the Regional Health Bureau, the health service coverage of the region is 100%, with institutional delivery coverage at 95%. There are two public hospitals, the Federal Police Hospital, two private general hospitals, one fistula hospital, eight government health centers, 16 health posts, and one non-governmental organization clinic. The study was conducted in the two public hospitals: Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital and Jugal Hospital.

Study design

A cross-sectional survey of women who had given birth in public hospitals found in the Harari region was conducted from 25 November 2018 to 28 April 2019.

Participants

All women who gave birth in the public hospitals found in the Harari region were included in the eligible study population. Participants were recruited following the birth of their baby in the hospitals. Using a previously developed and published protocol [31], we intended to exclude women with a high risk for emotional distress and in imminent danger. However, no women at such risk were identified during data collection.

The sample size was calculated using significant factors of partner violence during pregnancy obtained from a previous study conducted in Ethiopia [16]. Dowry payment maximized sample size; therefore, we used it as exposure variable for calculating sample size considering the following parameter: dowry payment as the exposure variable, power level of 80%, and the ratio of unexposed to exposed of 1.0. Therefore, taking a 5% contingency for the non-response rate, the final sample size needed was 670.

To select study participants, a systematic random sampling method was used. According to information from the hospitals, on average 2,283 women give birth in five months in the selected hospitals. Of these women, 1,599 give birth in Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital while the rest (684) give birth at Jugal Hospital. Therefore, proportionally, we recruited 469 participants from Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital while the remaining 201 were recruited from Jugal Hospital, using a sampling interval of 3 for both Hiwot Fana Specialized University Hospital (1599/469 = 3.41) and Jugal hospital (610/201 = 3.40).

Study tool and measurements

We used the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women questionnaire [32] to assess partner violence during the most recent pregnancy. The WHO questionnaire is available for public use and it was previously adapted to the Ethiopian context [32]. In this study, a woman was considered to have experienced IPV during pregnancy if she reported experiencing any violence during the most recent pregnancy including physical, sexual, or emotional violence. Physical, psychological and sexual IPV were measured by 6, 4 and 3 items respectively (Table 1). All items had response options of ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Women who responded ‘yes’ to at least one of physical, emotional, or psychological IPV item were considered to have experienced IPV.

Table 1. Items used to measure different types of IPV in the current study.

IPV Types Items asked Yes No
Physical During your most recent pregnancy, did your partner: Slap you or throw something at you that could hurt you?
Push you, shove you or pull your hair
Hit you with his fist or with something else that could hurt you?
Kick you, drag you about or beat you up?
Attempt to choke you or burn you on purpose?
Threaten to use or actually use a gun, knife or other weapon against you?
Emotional During your most recent pregnancy, did your partner: Say or do something to humiliate you in front of another person?
Threaten to hurt or harm you or someone you care about?
Insult you or make you feel bad about yourself?
Do things to scare or intimidate you on purpose (e.g., by the way he looked at you, by yelling and smashing things)?
Sexual During your most recent pregnancy, did your partner Physically force you to have sexual intercourse with him when you did not want to?
Force you with threats or in any other way to perform sexual acts you did not want?
Physically force you to perform any other sexual acts you did not want to?

In addition, potential explanatory variables identified by reviewing literature included the following sociodemographic factors: information regarding both partners’ age, education, and occupation, residency, region, religion, ethnicity, monthly family income, and the availability of social support for women. Marital and behavioural factors: information regarding the marital status of women, age at first marriage, number of lifetime sexual partners of women, duration of marriage, marriage ceremony, women’s ability to choose their partner, dowry payment during marriage, polygamous union, a woman and her partner’s khat chewing habit, and smoking and drinking alcohol during the most recent pregnancy. Reproductive and physical health-related factors: gravidity, parity, maternal pregnancy plan, partner’s pregnancy plan, partner’s child sex preference, women’s HIV serostatus, women ever diagnosed with kidney disease, and individual and family history of mental health problems.

Social support was measured using the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MDSPSS) questionnaire [33], which contains 12 questions, each followed by seven possible responses in a Likert scale format ranging from ‘very strongly disagree’ to ‘very strongly agree’. Women scoring the mean and above in the MDSPSS questionnaire were considered to have good support, while those who scored below the mean were considered to have poor support [33].

Attitude regarding IPV was evaluated by asking the participants if they agreed that a husband can beat his wife under each of the following six conditions: if she doesn’t complete her household work to his satisfaction; if she disobeys him; if she refuses to have sex; if she asks him whether he has another girlfriend; if he suspects that she is unfaithful; and if he found out that she is unfaithful. Participants who agreed to at least one of the above conditions were considered to have a perception that might justify IPV.

Similarly, women were also asked about their partner’s controlling behavior. These items included: whether he is jealous/angry if she talks to another male; if he has accused her of being unfaithful; if he does not permit her to meet female friends; if he has tried to limit her contact with her family; and if he insists on knowing where she is at all time. Women who responded to experiencing at least one of the above conditions with their current partner were considered to have experienced controlling behavior by a partner.

Women’s attitude regarding ability to refuse sex was assessed by asking women whether they believed that women have the right to refuse sex with their partners under the following conditions: if she does not want to have sex; if he has mistreated her; if she is sick; and if he is drunk. Respondents who agreed that women have the right to refuse sex under any of these circumstances were considered to have a positive attitude towards women’s right to refuse sex.

The prepared study tool was pretested on women from a similar facility which was not selected for this study to ensure consistency in providing the required information. Trained female midwives collected data using a face-to-face interviewer-administered questionnaire. The supervisors carefully followed the data collection procedure on a daily basis to ensure smooth data collection throughout the data collection period.

Statistical analysis

Data were entered into Epi Data version 3.1 and exported to STATA version 14 software package for analysis. The relationship between possible explanatory variables and IPV was investigated by using logistic regression. Three logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the associated factors of IPV. In the first model (Model 1), binary logistic regression was conducted to determine associations between IPV and potential explanatory variables. All potential explanatory variables that were fitted in binary logistic regression were obtained from relevant literatures. In the second model (Model 2), variables (excluding attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour) that demonstrated a significant association (with a p-value of ≤0.05) in bivariate analysis were exported to a multiple logistic regression model for multivariate analysis. In the final model (Model 3), the attitude towards IPV and controlling behaviour were added to variables in Model 2 to investigate the relationship between IPV and all explanatory variables. Both crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated when fitting logistic regression model. Variables with a p-value of ≤0.05 in multivariate analysis were considered to have a significant association with IPV during pregnancy.

Ethical clearance

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Newcastle (approval number: H-2018-0160), and the Institutional Research Ethics Review Committee of Haramaya University (approval number: IHRERC/195/2018). Permission to conduct the study was sought from each hospital administration. Voluntary verbal informed consent was obtained from each study participant. First, the interviewer read out participant’s information sheet slowly. Information regarding purpose of the study, risk and benefit of participating, measure taken to protect participants’ privacy and their choice to participate in the study were explained. Then, they were given adequate time to ask questions to ensure they had a clear understanding of the study. After their questions were addressed, their consent was sought by asking the participant to respond affirmatively to a series of statements. The interviewer signed and dated the consent form. The privacy of the participants was assured during the interview and they were not interviewed in the presence of their male partner to reduce the risk to participants and the interviewer. The interviews adhered to WHO Ethical and Safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women [34]. All participants who reported experiencing IPV were asked if they needed assistance; however, none of them took up the offer to be linked to the local women and children’s affairs office for support (the office responsible for the safety of women in Ethiopia).

Results

Socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

Among the potential 670 respondents, 648 women took part in the study, making a response rate of 96.7%. The majority of the respondents (83.18%) were aged 20–34 years, while most of their partners (78.55%) were in the age group of 20–39 years. Almost half of the women (48.61%) and a third of their partners (31.02%) had never attended any formal education. Most of the women (79.78%) were not involved in paid work while about half of the husbands (50.46%) were farmers/daily labourer. More than half of the respondents (55.40%) reported having good social support (Table 2).

Table 2. Socio-demographic characteristics of women who gave birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Variables N % IPV P-value
Yes No
N % N %
Woman’s age
 <20 years 29 4.48 11 37.93 18 62.07 0.006
 20–34 539 83.18 202 37.48 337 62.52
 35 and above 80 12.34 45 56.25 35 43.75
Partners’ age
 20–39 509 78.55 183 35.95 326 64.05 <0.001
 40 and above 139 21.45 75 53.96 64 46.04
Residence
 Rural 248 38.27 99 39.92 149 60.08 0.966
 Urban 400 61.73 159 39.75 241 60.25
Changed residential area during the most recent pregnancy
 Yes 81 12.50 37 45.68 44 54.32 0.249
 No 567 87.50 221 38.98 346 61.02
Region
 Oromia 388 59.88 165 42.53 223 57.47 *
 Harari 256 39.51 90 35.16 166 64.84
 Somali 4 0.62 3 75.00 1 25.00
Religion
 Muslim 535 82.56 221 41.31 314 58.69 0.091
 Christian 113 17.44 37 32.74 76 67.26
Woman’s education
 No formal education 315 48.61 149 47.30 166 52.7 <0.001
 Formal education 333 51.39 109 32.73 224 67.27
Partners’ education
 No formal education 201 31.02 100 49.75 101 50.25 <0.001
 Primary education 447 68.98 158 35.35 289 64.65
Woman’s occupation
 Not paid work 517 79.78 215 41.59 302 58.41 0.067
 Paid work 131 20.22 43 32.82 88 67.18
Partners’ occupation
 Farmer/daily labourer 327 50.46 105 32.11 222 67.89 0.581
 Self-Employed 191 29.48 65 34.03 126 65.97
 Other(NGO/students) 130 20.06 39 30.00 91 70.16
Average monthly family income in Ethiopian Birr
 400–1000 97 14.97 47 48.45 50 51.55 0.023
 1001–2000 201 31.02 88 43.78 113 56.22
 2001 and above 350 54.01 123 35.14 227 64.86
Received financial support
 Yes 21 3.24 11 52.38 10 47.62 0.232
 No 627 96.76 247 39.39 380 60.61
Social support
 Good support 359 55.40 131 36.49 228 63.51 0.054
 Poor support 289 44.60 127 43.94 162 56.06

*chi2 p-value was not calculated due to small cell count.

Marital and behavioral factors of the respondents

Among all respondents, 99.07% were married and approximately half of them (49.69%) had lived with their current partner for more than five years. Almost all of the respondents, 96.60% were married in a ceremony, and most of the women (93.52%) chose their partner. About half of the respondents (49.23%) and most of their partners (84.88%) chewed khat during the most recent pregnancy (Table 3).

Table 3. Marital and behavioral factors of women who gave birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Variables N % IPV P-value
Yes No
N % N %
Marital status
 Married 642 99.07 252 39.25 390 60.75 *
 Others 6 0.93 6 100.00 - -
Woman’s lifetime sexual partners
 Single 600 92.59 233 38.83 367 61.17 0.071
 Multiple 48 7.41 25 52.08 23 47.92
Duration of marriage to current partner
 Under five years 326 50.31 104 31.90 222 68.10 <0.001
 More than five years 322 49.69 154 47.83 168 52.17
Age at first marriage
 Under 18 years 116 17.90 49 42.24 67 57.76 0.556
 18 years and over 532 82.10 209 39.29 323 60.71
Marriage ceremony
 Yes 626 96.60 249 39.78 377 60.22 0.915
 No 22 3.40 9 40.91 13 59.09
Choice of partner
 The woman 606 93.52 242 39.93 364 60.07 0.814
 Others 42 6.48 16 38.10 26 61.90
Dowry requested
 Yes 188 29.01 77 40.96 111 59.04 0.704
 No 460 70.99 181 39.35 279 60.65
Dowry payment before marriage (n = 188)
 Fully Paid 174 92.55 72 41.38 102 58.62 0.678
 Partially paid 14 7.45 5 35.71 9 64.29
Perceived dowry impact on relationship (n = 188)
 Positive impact 25 13.30 11 44.00 14 56.00 0.160
 Negative 18 9.57 11 61.11 7 38.89
 No impact 145 77.13 55 37.93 90 62.07
Living with partner’s relative
 Yes 212 32.72 76 35.85 136 64.15 0.150
 No 436 67.29 182 41.74 254 58.26
Suspects partner of infidelity
 Yes 12 1.85 7 58.33 5 41.67 *
 No 636 98.15 251 39.47 385 60.53
Polygamous marriage
 Yes 22 3.40 10 45.45 12 54.55 0.582
 No 626 96.61 248 39.62 378 60.38
Position of the respondent in a polygamous union (n = 22)
 First wife 4 18.18 1 25.00 3 75.00 *
 Second wife 17 77.27 8 47.06 9 52.94
 Third wife 1 4.55 1 100.00 - -
Change in sexual interest during the last pregnancy
 No change 378 58.33 162 42.86 216 57.14 *
 Reduced 268 41.36 94 35.07 174 64.93
 Increased 2 0.31 2 100.00 - -
Maternal khat chewing during last pregnancy
 Ever chewed 319 49.23 105 32.92 214 67.08 0.641
 Never chewed 329 50.77 114 34.65 215 65.35
Maternal cigarette smoking during last pregnancy
 Ever smoked 4 0.62 3 75.00 1 25.00 *
 Never smoked 644 99.38 255 39.60 389 60.40
Maternal alcohol use during last pregnancy
 Ever drunk 56 8.64 19 33.93 37 66.07 0.346
 Never drunk 592 91.36 239 40.37 353 59.63
Partner’s khat chewing during last pregnancy
 Ever chewed 550 84.88 193 35.10 357 64.90 0.390
 Never chewed 98 15.12 30 30.61 68 69.39
Partner’s smoking during last pregnancy
 Ever smoked 142 21.91 70 49.30 72 50.70 0.009
 Never smoked 506 78.09 188 37.15 318 62.85
Partner’s alcohol use during last pregnancy
 Ever drunk 74 11.42 25 33.78 49 66.22 0.260
 Never drunk 574 88.58 233 40.59 341 59.41

*chi2 p-value was not calculated due to small cell count.

Reproductive and physical health-related factors of the respondents

Among all respondents, one-third (33.3%) were primigravida, whereas 37.04% of them were primipara. Of all respondents, more than three quarters (76.54%) reported that they had planned their most recent pregnancy (Table 4).

Table 4. Reproductive and physical health-related factors of women who gave birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Variables N % IPV P-value
Yes No
n % N %
Gravidity
 Primigravida 216 33.33 69 31.94 147 68.06 0.004
 Multigravida 432 66.67 189 43.75 243 56.25
Parity
 Primipara 240 37.04 76 31.67 164 68.33 0.001
 Multipara 408 62.96 182 44.61 226 55.39
Maternal pregnancy plan
 Planned 496 76.54 177 35.69 319 64.31 <0.001
 Unplanned 152 23.46 81 53.29 71 46.71
Maternal efforts in delaying their last pregnancy
 Yes 25 3.86 12 48.00 13 52.00 0.394
 No 623 96.14 246 39.49 377 60.51
ANC Booking
 Early 328 50.62 145 44.21 183 55.79 0.215
 Late/No 320 49.38 157 49.06 163 50.94
Partner’s preference of child’s sex
 Son 110 16.98 40 36.36 70 63.64 0.545
 Daughter 53 8.18 24 45.28 29 54.72
 No preference 485 74.84 194 40.00 291 60.00
Women’s current HIV status
 Positive 2 0.31 1 50.00 1 50.00 *
 Negative 512 79.01 180 35.16 332 64.84
 Unknown 134 20.68 77 57.46 57 42.54
Diagnosed with kidney disease
 Yes 99 15.28 44 44.44 55 55.56 0.307
 No 549 84.72 214 38.98 335 61.02
Has a known disability
 Yes 5 0.77 3 60.00 2 40.00 *
 No 643 99.23 255 39.66 388 60.34
Diagnosed with mental illness
 Yes 8 1.23 7 87.50 1 12.50 *
 No 640 98.77 251 39.22 389 60.78
Family member diagnosed with a mental illness
 Yes 16 2.47 10 62.50 6 37.50 *
 No 632 97.53 248 39.24 384 60.70

*chi2 p-value was not calculated due to small cell count.

Attitudes supportive of partner violence and partner controlling

The findings indicated that almost all respondents (99.38%) agreed that married women should be able to refuse sex with her husband in certain circumstances. More than two-thirds of the respondents (68.67%) had a perception that might justify IPV (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Proportion of respondents having different perception that might justify partner violence and partner controlling among women who had given birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Fig 1

Intimate partner violence

Women were asked about their experience regarding exposure to different types of violence from their intimate partners. Slapping/throwing things at them (24.69%) and making the women feel bad about themselves (17.75%) constituted the most frequently experienced emotional and physical violence, respectively. Forcing the women to have sex when they did not want to (2.31%) was found to be the most frequently reported sexual violence (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Proportion of women who reported different types of IPV during pregnancy among women who had given birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Fig 2

Of all respondents, 39.81% reported experiencing any of the three aspects of IPV, while the least frequently reported types of IPV being sexual violence, 3.70% (Table 5).

Table 5. Proportion of women who reported different aspects of IPV during pregnancy among women who had given birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Types of partner violence reported N % 95%CI
Emotional IPV 166 25.62 22.3–29.16
Physical IPV 168 25.93 22.59–29.48
Sexual IPV 24 3.70 2.39–5.46
Any IPV 258 39.81 36.02–43.70

Factors associated with partner violence during most recent pregnancy

The relationship between all potential explanatory variables and IPV were investigated by using binary logistic regression (Model 1; Table 6). In the second model (Model 2), variables that demonstrated a significant association (with a p-value of ≤0.05) in bivariate analysis (excluding attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour) were exported to a multiple logistic regression model for multivariate analysis. In the final model (Model 3), the attitude towards IPV and controlling behaviour were added to variables in Model 2 to investigate the relationship between IPV and all explanatory variables. As observed from Model 3, after controlling for possible confounders, duration of marriage with current partner, maternal pregnancy plan, partner controlling behavior and having a perception whereby IPV is justified were found to have an association with IPV in multivariate analysis. The study demonstrated that women with longer (>5 years) marriages with their current partner were 1.7 times (AOR = 1.68, 95%CI = 1.01–2.79) more likely to experience IPV. Furthermore, women who reported having an unplanned recent pregnancy were 1.6 times more likely (AOR = 1.55, 95%CI = 1.03–2.34) to experience IPV compared to those who had planned their pregnancy.

Table 6. Bivariate and multivariate regression of factors associated with partner violence during pregnancy among women who gave birth in public hospitals in Harari regional state, East Ethiopia, 2018–2019.

Variable Model 1 COR, 95%CI Model 2 AOR, 95%CI Model 3 AOR, 95%CI
Women age
 <20 years 0.48(0.20, 1.14) 1.04(0.37, 2.89) 0.86(0.30, 2.47)
 20–34 years 0.47(0.29, 0.75) 0.78(0.42, 1.44) 0.77(0.41, 1.44)
 35 years and over 1 1 1
Partners’ age
 20–39 years 1 1 1
 40 years and over 2.09(1.43, 3.05) 1.18(0.70, 1.98) 1.22(0.72,2.08)
Women’s education
 No formal education 1.85(1.34, 2.54) 1.19(0.78, 1.81) 1.09(0.71, 1.68)
 Has formal education 1 1 1
Partners’ education
 No formal education 1.81(1.29, 2.54) 1.12(0.72, 1.71) 1.12(0.72, 1.75)
 Has formal education 1 1
Average family income (in Eth Birr)
 400–1000 1.74(1.10, 2.73) 1.46(0.89, 2.40) 1.63(0.98, 2.71)
 1001–2000 1.44(1.01, 2.05) 1.27(0.87, 1.86) 1.34(0.91, 1.98)
 2000 and above 1 1 1
Duration of marriage with current partner
 ≤5 years 1 1 1
 >5years 1.96(1.42, 2.69) 1.53(0.94, 2.51) 1.70(1.02, 2.82)*
Parity
 Primi 1 1 1
 Multi 1.74(1.24, 2.43) 0.99(0.60, 1.64) 0.94(0.56, 1.57)
Husband ever smoked
 Yes 1.65(1.13, 2.39) 1.18(0.78, 1.78) 1.02(0.67, 1.55)
 No 1 1 1
Maternal pregnancy plan
 Planned 1 1 1
 Unplanned 2.06(1.42, 2.97) 1.51(1.01, 2.25) 1.58(1.06, 2.38)*
Partner controlling behaviour
 Yes 2.14(1.43, 3.18) 2.27(1.49, 3.46)*
 No 1 1
Attitude towards partner violence
 Have perception that justified violence 1.85(1.30, 2.63) 1.62(1.10 2.39)*
 Have no perception that justify violence 1 1

* Significant at a p-value of ≤0.05, COR = Crude odds ratio, AOR = Adjusted odds ratio, CI Confidence interval.

Women who reported partner controlling behavior and those who had a perception whereby IPV was justified were 2.2 (AOR = 2.23, 95%CI = 1.46–3.40) and 1.6 (AOR = 1.60, 95%CI = 1.09–2.36) times more likely to experience IPV, respectively, compared to their counterparts (Table 6).

Discussion

This study assessed the prevalence and associated factors of IPV during pregnancy in the Harari regional state, East Ethiopia. Overall, 40% of women reported experiencing IPV during their most recent pregnancy. Duration of marriage with current partner, maternal pregnancy plan, partner controlling behavior and having an attitude that justifies partner violence were found to have an association with IPV. The findings of the current study provide, for the first time, information regarding IPV during pregnancy in the region.

The prevalence of IPV in this study was similar to that of previous Ethiopian studies that were conducted in Jimma (45%) [16] and Tigray (41%) [35] and findings from other countries that were conducted in Jordan (40.9%) [36], Kenya (37%) [30], Egypt (44.1%) [37] and Portugal (43.4%) [38]. However, it was lower than that of previous studies from Ethiopia that were conducted in Addis Ababa (75.2%) [5] and Bale Zone (59%) [18], but higher than that of previously conducted research in southern Ethiopia (21%) [39]. The lower prevalence of IPV in the current study compared to the previous study from Bale Zone might be due to the difference in measurement of IPV as the study from Bale Zone used a wider definition of IPV that included economic violence, whereas in our study the definition of IPV was limited to physical, sexual, and emotional violence. Furthermore, the difference in the study setting might contribute to the lower prevalence of IPV in the current study compared to a previous community-based study from Addis Ababa. As previous evidence has indicated [6], women who attend health facilities for maternal health care services were less likely to report IPV compared to women in the community who did not attend the facility which might lead to the lower prevalence of IPV in the current study.

Differences in culture, social norms and implementation of laws that prevent violence against women might also lead to differences in prevalence of IPV [40]. For example, evidence from the 2016 EDHS has indicated a lower proportion of males support wife beating in southern Ethiopia (14.9%) compared to the Harari region (22.6%)[12] suggesting that at least some differences in social norms exist that might contribute to the differences in prevalence. Furthermore, the difference in gender equality might also contribute to the difference in prevalence of IPV as previous evidence has indicated a lower rate of partner violence in a society that upholds gender equality [41].

In this study, sexual violence (3.70%) was the least frequently reported type of IPV compared to both physical (25.93%) and emotional (25.62%) IPV. This finding is similar to the previous study conducted in Gondar Hospital, which reported a prevalence of sexual IPV of 2.4% [42]. However, a higher prevalence of sexual IPV among pregnant women was reported by other studies from Ethiopia that were conducted in Jimma (30%) [16], Debre-Berhan (19.8%) [17], Hulet Ejju Enessie district (14.8%) [43], and Bale Zone (36.3%) [18]. The low prevalence of sexual IPV in the current study might be attributed to women’s strong disapproval of sexual violence as more than 99% of women in this study believed that women had the right to refuse sex. However, the potential for underreporting should not be overlooked as respondents might not give an answer honestly when asked culturally sensitive questions about sexual matters [4446]. In sociocentric and highly patriarchal societies like Ethiopia, women often feel humiliated and ashamed to disclose sexual violence, primarily due to a lack of support and negative responses from others within their society because of the presence of cultural messages that trivialize sexual violence [47, 48].

The current study has indicated higher odds of IPV among women who were married for more than five years compared to those who were married for less than five years. A similar finding was reported by the study from Zambia indicating an increased risk of IPV as marriage duration increases [29]. The increased duration of marriage might lead to an increased risk of partner violence as factors such as having additional children and economic hardship put more demands and stress on the family[49].

Women with an unplanned pregnancy also had increased odds of experiencing partner violence during pregnancy. This finding is in agreement with previous studies from Ethiopia [13, 42, 43] and other review studies [50, 51]. This might indicate the existence and continuation of pre-pregnancy IPV because women in abusive relationships may not have control over when to have sex, and they might be less able to use effective methods of contraception [52]. Furthermore, it is possible that some men use intimidation and physical violence to pressure their partners to become pregnant [53], leading to unplanned pregnancy as an outcome of IPV.

Partner controlling behavior was also found to be associated with experiencing IPV. This finding is consistent with previous studies from Nigeria [28], Haiti [54] and Nepal [55]. This might be a result of the social construct that promotes male dominance through encouraging men to exercise control over their partner, which in turn paves the way for IPV when the male partner feels threatened by a perceived lack of control over their wives [56].

The study also demonstrated that women who had a perception whereby partner violence was justified were more likely to experience partner violence than those who had no such perception. This finding is consistent with previous studies conducted in Bangladesh [57] and Iran [58]. It is important to note that none of the women who experienced IPV in the current study took up the offer to be supported. Although further study is needed to understand why abused women may not always seek support, this might indicate an overall tolerance of violence within the community and its role in fostering a conducive environment for abusers [59]. Furthermore, the fact that women in Ethiopia have less control over financial resources, which includes reduced access to sources of money and ability to spend it without consulting their partners [60], might contribute to the acceptance of partner violence by reducing women’s empowerment [61]. In countries like Ethiopia, where women have little control over financial resources but have a greater social responsibility for raising children, women may accept the violence in order to give priority to their children who might suffer if the family separated [62].

Strengths and limitations

Due to its cross-sectional nature, the study cannot determine cause and effect relationships between IPV and other explanatory variables. Furthermore, there is a possibility of recall bias and social desirability bias, although we made efforts to reduce it by strictly adhering to the WHO Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on domestic violence against women [34]. Regardless of these limitations, the current study provides robust and much needed information on the scale of partner violence during pregnancy and its associated factors in public hospitals found in the region.

Conclusion

The prevalence of IPV during pregnancy is high; two in five women experienced IPV during their most recent pregnancy. Pregnancy monitoring programs, which can detect and intervene with regard to partner’s controlling behaviors and women’s perception regarding justification of IPV, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy, could help to reduce IPV. Further, changing social norms that condone violence through advocacy and awareness creation might help in preventing partner violence [63, 64]. To support this awareness creation using local evidence, further research that investigates the consequence of IPV on pregnancy outcomes is needed. Law enforcement agencies should strictly implement legislation that prevents violence against women, which in the long term will aid in creating societies that do not tolerate violence [40].

Acknowledgments

We would like to extend our appreciation to the University of Newcastle, Australia for providing technical and financial support for this study. We would also like to thank all mothers who participated in this study and their commitment to respond to our questions. We would like to thank Ms.Natalia Soeters for language proof reading and editing this manuscript.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript.

Funding Statement

We received financial support as part of regular support for research student from the University of Newcastle, Australia, to support some of our data collection and travel fees. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy James A, Zwi AB, Lozano R: World report on violence and health In: Chapter 4 Violence By Intimate Partners Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002: 89. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sharps PW, Laughon K, Giangrande SK: Intimate partner violence and the childbearing year: maternal and infant health consequences. Trauma, violence & abuse 2007, 8(2):105–116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yost NP, Bloom SL, McIntire DD, Leveno KJ: A prospective observational study of domestic violence during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2005, 106(1):61–65. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000164468.06070.2a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rurangirwa AA, Mogren I, Ntaganira J, Krantz G: Intimate partner violence among pregnant women in Rwanda, its associated risk factors and relationship to ANC services attendance: A population-based study. BMJ Open 2017, 7(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Mohammed BH, Johnston JM, Harwell JI, Yi H, Tsang KWK, Haidar JA: Intimate partner violence and utilization of maternal health care services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. BMC health services research 2017, 17(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Musa A, Chojenta C, Geleto A, Loxton D: The associations between intimate partner violence and maternal health care service utilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Womens Health 2019, 19(1):36–36. 10.1186/s12905-019-0735-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Williams CM, Larsen U, McCloskey LA: Intimate Partner Violence and Women’s Contraceptive Use. Violence Against Women 2008, 14(12):1382–1396. 10.1177/1077801208325187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Violence against women: Key facts [internet]. WHO. 2017(cited 12/10/2019). available from: [http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs239/en/]
  • 9.Briere J, Jordan CE: Violence Against Women: Outcome Complexity and Implications for Assessment and Treatment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2004, 19(11):1252–1276. 10.1177/0886260504269682 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.WHO: WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women: Initial Results on Prevalence, Health Outcomes and Women’s Response. In. Geneva; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shamu S, Abrahams N, Temmerman M, Musekiwa A, Zarowsky C: A systematic review of African studies on intimate partner violence against pregnant women: prevalence and risk factors. PloS one 2011, 6(3):e17591 10.1371/journal.pone.0017591 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.CSA [Ethiopia], ICF: Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016.,. In. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Rockville, Maryland, USA; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Kassa ZY, Menale AW: Physical violence and associated factors during pregnancy in Yirgalem town, South Ethiopia. Current Pediatric Research 2016, 20(1):37–42. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Gebrezgi BH, Badi MB, Cherkose EA, Weldehaweria NB: Factors associated with intimate partner physical violence among women attending antenatal care in Shire Endaselassie town, Tigray, northern Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study, July 2015. Reprod Health 2017, 14(1):76 10.1186/s12978-017-0337-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Demelash H, Nigatu D, Gashaw K: A Case-Control Study on Intimate Partner Violence during Pregnancy and Low Birth Weight, Southeast Ethiopia. Obstet Gynecol Int 2015, 2015:394875 10.1155/2015/394875 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Abebe Abate B, Admassu Wossen B, Tilahun Degfie T: Determinants of intimate partner violence during pregnancy among married women in Abay Chomen district, Western Ethiopia: a community based cross sectional study. BMC Womens Health 2016, 16:16 10.1186/s12905-016-0294-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Azene ZN, Yeshita HY, Mekonnen FA: Intimate partner violence and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal care service in Debre Markos town health facilities, Northwest Ethiopia. PloS one 2019, 14(7):e0218722 10.1371/journal.pone.0218722 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Lencha B, Ameya G, Baresa G, Minda Z, Ganfure G: Intimate partner violence and its associated factors among pregnant women in Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. PloS one 2019, 14(5):e0214962 10.1371/journal.pone.0214962 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Alebel A, Kibret GD, Wagnew F, Tesema C, Ferede A, Petrucka P,et al. : Intimate partner violence and associated factors among pregnant women in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Health 2018, 15(1):196–196. 10.1186/s12978-018-0637-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Central Statistical Agency: Population Projection of Ethiopia for All Regions At Wereda Level from 2014–2017. In. Edited by Agency FDRoECS. Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Agency; 2013. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Naved RT, Persson LA: Factors associated with physical spousal abuse of women during pregnancy in Bangladesh. Int Fam Plan Perspect 2008, 34(2):71–78. 10.1363/ifpp.34.071.08 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Douki S, Nacef F, Belhadj A, Bouasker A, Ghachem R: Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries. Archives of women’s mental health 2003, 6(3):165–171. 10.1007/s00737-003-0170-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Linos N, Slopen N, Subramanian SV, Berkman L, Kawachi I: Influence of Community Social Norms on Spousal Violence: A Population-Based Multilevel Study of Nigerian Women. American Journal of Public Health 2013, 103(1):148–155. 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300829 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.MoCT: Culture and Tourism for National Development. 2017.
  • 25.Batra ND: Why this growing atrocities on women? Yojana 1988, 32(9):32–34. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Banerjee PR: Dowry in 21st-Century India: The Sociocultural Face of Exploitation. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2013, 15(1):34–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Regassa M, Mitiku T, Hailu W: Addooyyee: Girl’s Indigenous Friendship Institution in Oromoo, Ethiopia. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding 2019, 6(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Antai D: Controlling behavior, power relations within intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health 2011, 11:511–511. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-511 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Klomegah RY: Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in Zambia: An Examination of Risk Factors and Gender Perceptions. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 2008, 39(4):557–569. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Makayoto L, Omolo J, Kamweya A, Harder V, Mutai J: Prevalence and Associated Factors of Intimate Partner Violence Among Pregnant Women Attending Kisumu District Hospital, Kenya. Maternal & Child Health Journal 2013, 17(3):441–447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Draucker CB, Martsolf DS, Poole C: Developing distress protocols for research on sensitive topics. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2009, 23(5):343–350. 10.1016/j.apnu.2008.10.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen HA, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH: Prevalence of intimate partner violence: fi ndings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic Violence. Lancet 2006, Lancet (368):1260–1269. 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK: The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. Journal of Personality Assessment 1988, 52(1):30–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.World Health Organization: Putting Women’s Safety First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on Domestic Violence Against Women. Geneva: Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, World Health Organization; 1999. Report No.: WHO/EIP/GPE/99.2. In. Geneva: World Health Organization; 199.
  • 35.Berhanie E, Gebregziabher D, Berihu H, Gerezgiher A, Kidane G: Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: a case-control study. Reprod Health 2019, 16(1):22 10.1186/s12978-019-0670-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Okour AM, Badarneh R: Spousal violence against pregnant women from a Bedouin community in Jordan. Journal of Women’s Health 2011, 20(12):1853–1859. 10.1089/jwh.2010.2588 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ibrahim ZM, Sayed Ahmed WA, El-Hamid SA, Hagras AM: Intimate partner violence among Egyptian pregnant women: incidence, risk factors, and adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2015, 42(2):212–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Almeida FSJ, Coutinho EC, Duarte JC, Chaves CMB, Nelas PAB, Amaral OP, Parreira VC: Domestic violence in pregnancy: prevalence and characteristics of the pregnant woman. Journal of clinical nursing 2017, 26(15–16):2417–2425. 10.1111/jocn.13756 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Belay S, Astatkie A, Emmelin M, Hinderaker SG: Intimate partner violence and maternal depression during pregnancy: A community-based cross-sectional study in Ethiopia. PloS one 2019, 14(7):e0220003 10.1371/journal.pone.0220003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.World Health Organization: Violence prevention: The Evidence. In. Geneva: World Health Organisatioon; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Archer J: Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: a social-role analysis. Personality and social psychology review: an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc 2006, 10(2):133–153. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bifftu BB, Dachew BA, Tadesse Tiruneh B, Zewoldie AZ: Domestic Violence among Pregnant Mothers in Northwest Ethiopia: Prevalence and Associated Factors. Advances in Public Health 2017, 2017:6. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yimer T, Gobena T, Egata G, Mellie H: Magnitude of Domestic Violence and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women in Hulet Ejju Enessie District, Northwest Ethiopia. Advances in Public Health 2014, 2014:8. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Tang N, Bensman L, Hatfield E: Culture and Sexual Self-Disclosure in Intimate Relationships. Interpersona: An International Journal on Personal Relationships 2013, 7(2):19. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kershner M, Anderson JE: Barriers to disclosure of abuse among rural women. Minnesota medicine 2002, 85(3):32–37. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gnambs T, Kaspar K: Disclosure of sensitive behaviors across self-administered survey modes: a meta-analysis. Behavior Research Methods 2015, 47(4):1237–1259. 10.3758/s13428-014-0533-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Jacques-Tiura AJ, Tkatch R, Abbey A, Wegner R: Disclosure of sexual assault: characteristics and implications for posttraumatic stress symptoms among African American and caucasian survivors. J Trauma Dissociation 2010, 11(2):174–192. 10.1080/15299730903502938 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Kennedy AC, Prock KA: "I Still Feel Like I Am Not Normal": A Review of the Role of Stigma and Stigmatization Among Female Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse, Sexual Assault, and Intimate Partner Violence. Trauma, violence & abuse 2018, 19(5):512–527. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Adebowale AS: Spousal age difference and associated predictors of intimate partner violence in Nigeria. BMC Public Health 2018, 18(1):212 10.1186/s12889-018-5118-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Udmuangpia T, Bloom DT: Intimate Partner Violence and Unintended Pregnancy among Young Pregnant Women in Low-and Middle Income Countries: Integrative Review of the Literature. Annals of Global Health 2017, 83(1):204. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Pallitto CC, Campbell JC, O’Campo P: Is intimate partner violence associated with unintended pregnancy? A review of the literature. Trauma, violence & abuse 2005, 6(3):217–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Campbell J, Abrahams N, Martin L: Perpetration of violence against intimate partners: health care implications from global data. CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008, 179(6):511–512. 10.1503/cmaj.081145 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J,et al. : Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence, and unintended pregnancy. Contraception 2010, 81(4):316–322. 10.1016/j.contraception.2009.12.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Gage AJ, Hutchinson PL: Power, control, and intimate partner sexual violence in Haiti. Archives of sexual behavior 2006, 35(1):11–24. 10.1007/s10508-006-8991-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sujan G, Hyoung-Sun J: Intimate Partner Violence in Relation to Husband Characteristics and Women Empowerment: Evidence from Nepal. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019(5):709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Sugihara Y, Warner JA: Dominance and Domestic Abuse Among Mexican Americans: Gender Differences in the Etiology of Violence in Intimate Relationships. Journal of Family Violence 2002, 17(4):315–340. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sambisa W, Angeles G, Lance PM, Naved RT, Curtis SL: Physical and sexual abuse of wives in urban Bangladesh: husbands’ reports. Studies in family planning 2010, 41(3):165–178. 10.1111/j.1728-4465.2010.00241.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Faramarzi M, Esmailzadeh S, Mosavi S: A comparison of abused and non-abused women’s definitions of domestic violence and attitudes to acceptance of male dominance. European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology 2005, 122(2):225–231. 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.11.047 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Kurz D: SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE:: Current Debates and Future Directions. Gender & Society 1989, 3(4):489–505. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Nigatu D, Gebremariam A, Abera M, Setegn T, Deribe K: Factors associated with women’s autonomy regarding maternal and child health care utilization in Bale Zone: a community based cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health 2014, 14:79–79. 10.1186/1472-6874-14-79 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Yilmaz O: Female Autonomy, Social Norms and Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Turkey. The Journal of Development Studies 2018, 54(8):1321–1337. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Olufunmilayo IF, Adedibu LA, Adeniran OF: Intimate Partner Abuse: Wife Beating among Civil Servants in Ibadan, Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health / La Revue Africaine de la Santé Reproductive 2005, 9(2):54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Wagman JA, Gray RH, Nakyanjo N, McClendon KA, Bonnevie E, Namatovu F, et al. : Process evaluation of the SHARE intervention for preventing intimate partner violence and HIV infection in Rakai, Uganda. Evaluation and program planning 2018, 67:129–137. 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.12.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rivas C, Ramsay J, Sadowski L, Davidson LL, Dunne D, Eldridge S, et al. : Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2015(12):Cd005043 10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

José J López-Goñi

23 Mar 2020

PONE-D-19-32908

High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Musa,

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.

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

This study addresses a very interesting topic with an undoubted interest. Nevertheless, the reviewers have identified some lacks in the manuscript, some of them being relevant. Authors must revise them carefully. If you consider resubmitting the manuscript to PlosOne, I recommend you making a major revision taking into account the two reviewers’ comments. In this sense, I agree especially with the methodological concerns highlighted by them. They must be revised carefully.

Lastly, I apologize for the delay in the response. The past few weeks have been very difficult.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 07 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José J. López-Goñi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

This study addresses a very interesting topic with an undoubted interest. Nevertheless, the reviewers have identified some lacks in the manuscript, some of them being relevant. Authors must revise them carefully. If you consider resubmitting the manuscript to PlosOne, I recommend you making a major revision taking into account the two reviewers’ comments. In this sense, I agree especially with the methodological concerns highlighted by them. They must be revised carefully.

Lastly, I apologize for the delay in the response. The past few weeks have been very difficult.

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please address the following:

- Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

- Please describe how verbal consent was documented and witnessed.

- Please refrain from stating p values as 0.000, either use the exact number or the format p<0.001.

3. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

[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: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: Yes

**********

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: PONE-D-19-32908 High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study.

The study examines the prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy among women who had given birth in public hospitals in the Harari region of Ethiopia. In addition, it points out some risk factors that could guide the intervention.

The authors justify the need for this study because the limited information on this problem in this specific region. However, they mention the existence of other studies in Ethiopia. Could the authors indicate what differentiates this region from those already been studied? In other words, why study this specific region is relevant?

Abstract

Please, correct the sentence: “Variables with a pvalue of £0.05 were considered to have an association with intimate partner violence during pregnancy”.

Introduction

After indicating that Ethiopia is a multi-cultural state, the authors describe dowry as a practice that increases the risk of IPV for women. They also describe two types of dowry with potentially different results for women. However, it is not clear how this practice is in the Harari region.

Method

It is not clear if data collection was completed before or after births. Hence, it is not obvious what the authors mean when they say “the most recent pregnancy”? Is it the current pregnancy? In page 13, it seems that some interviews were completed before and other after births. Please, clarify this.

It would be necessary to know the format of the questions posed and some examples of them.

Statistical Analysis

This section needs a more detailed description of the steps followed in the analysis. For instance, could you indicate how you set the levels of the outcome to compute the logistic regressions? (i.e., was it used a "yes" or "no" binary category?). Could you indicate the method used to introduce the predictor variables into the analyses? Moreover, it is not clear how and why the authors computed a binary regression and, subsequently, a multiple logistic regression. How did they change an outcome with two levels to more than two levels? The authors need to explain this better?

Discussion

The discussion outlines the findings and situates these alongside the reviewed research. The paper also refers to some study limitations. However, the authors could also refer to the consequences of IPV on the health of women and their children as a means to demand more intensely a change in social norms that condone violence. In a social context with such a high acceptance of IPV, hospitals can do more than point out that violence exists. They can focus on the seriousness of the consequences that violence entails in order to start raising awareness.

For the future, the authors could find interesting to analyze the consequences of IPV on the health of women and neonates.

It is strange that no woman accepted the help offered by the violence she was suffering. Authors should try to explain this.

Reviewer #2: Thank you very much for letting me read and comment this interesting manuscript. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of IPV during pregnancy in a region of Ethiopia and to explore IPV related factors. Although this is a widely studied topic throughout the world, one more article will be always necessary. Shown below, I make some comments hoping they will be useful to improve the manuscript.

Generally, authors made an exploratory analysis. I personally think that a hypothesys-based analysis would make more sense. In my opinión, the current approach is a little bit confusing.

Summary:

Please, provide the explanation for AOR and CI.

The second sentence of the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the results.

Introduction:

The first paragraph does not seem necessary to me.

The paragraph on page 4 that begins with “The relationship between dowry payment…” should be revised. From y point of view, too much importance is given to dowry as a explanatory factor, but then not throughout the text. Perhaps it is only necessary to comment that some factors related to IPV during pregnancy have been identified and give some examples. In the current version, it is not known whether the factors cited are related to IPV or IPV during pregnancy.

Methods:

The first section could be entitled "Study design" and include soon the mention to "cross-sectional study". Ethical statements could be placed in this same section.

The dowry payment exposure was used to calculate the sample size, but it is not known why and, in any case, an estimate of its magnitude is lacked.

How many items does the questionnaire have? How many for each type of violence? Could you provide details of its validity?

Generally, there are too many variables. I believe that a selection could be made with the most relevant according to the scientific literature and the most explanatory according to the preliminary analyses.

Results:

I would prefrer to see the first tables and figures with the total percentages (like now), but also the percentages according to having suffered from IPV (and not). That is, three columns, one with total n (%), one with n (%) for those without IPV, and another column for those with IPV. A fourth column can be displayed with p-values.

Figures mixing absolute and relative values don't make much sense.

In Table 5, mixing the variables that reflect the partner’s control and the attitude towards IPV with the other variables is confusing for me. There may be overlapping issues and it does not help to understand the phenomenon. These two variables could be used to make strata, and study the effect of the other variables on them. In sum, these variables could be on the causal pathaway.

Conclusions:

Some of them are not based on results. Some are general comments, probably true, but not followed directly from this study. From this work it can be concluded, for instance, that a pregnancy monitoring program is necessary, which can detect partner’s control behaviors and women justification of IPV, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy.

**********

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: Yes: Rosaura Gonzalez-Mendez

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 4;15(6):e0233907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233907.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Apr 2020

Response to Editor and reviewers

Response to Editor

Comment 1: Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information

Response 1: The questionnaire we used to collect this data was obtained from WHO Multi-country VAW study. This questionnaire will be submitted and published in University Newcastle online thesis repository as part of PhD thesis. However, we extracted specific items that were used to measure the outcome variable and included them in the methodology section in the current manuscript as a table (Table 1).

Comment 2: Please describe how verbal consent was documented and witnessed

Response 2: To address this, the following sentences were added to information under Ethical clearance “First, the interviewer read out participant’s information sheet slowly. Information regarding purpose of the study, risk and benefit of participating, measure taken to protect participants’ privacy and their choice to participate in the study were explained. Then, they were given adequate time to ask questions to ensure they had a clear understanding of the study. After their questions were addressed, their consent was sought by asking the participant to respond affirmatively to a series of statements. The interviewer signed and dated the consent form”.

Comment 3: Please refrain from stating p values as 0.000, either use the exact number or the format p<0.001.

Response 3:Comment accepted and corrected in the current manuscript.

comment 4: Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript

Response 4: Our ethical clearance statement appears under the methodology section. In the current manuscript version, the approval numbers for respective Ethical clearance have been inserted

Response to reviewer 1

Comment 1

General comments

The authors justify the need for this study because the limited information on this problem in this specific region. However, they mention the existence of other studies in Ethiopia. Could the authors indicate what differentiates this region from those already been studied? In other words, why study this specific region is relevant?

Response 1: This region is different from most of the regions in Ethiopia. Some of these differences are described below:

A) Residency: The Ethiopian population is predominantly rural (86%). However, Harari region is the only region in Ethiopia where the majority of its population live in urban locations (55%) as described under the study setting in the manuscript. Residency is one of the important factors that can affect IPV(Naved and Persson 2008).

B) Religion: about one third of the Ethiopian population are Muslim but in Harari region more than two thirds of the population are Muslim. Differences in religion might contribute to IPV as the religion might be misused to justify IPV. For example, in some Muslim countries, selective quotes from the Quran may be used to ‘prove’ that it is allowable for a man to ‘beat’ his wife (Douki et al. 2003) which might embolden the perpetrator

C) Substance use: Although about 16% of males in Ethiopia use Khat, in Eastern Ethiopia (including Harari region) a relatively higher proportion of the population use Khat, Evidence has indicated more than 32% of women and 73% of males use Khat (CSA [Ethiopia] and ICF 2016). Using Khat and other drugs were associated with an increased risk of IPV (Kassa and Menale 2016; Lencha et al. 2019). In the Ethiopian context, regions are semi-autonomous and they have their own health bureau that leads interventions related to health in the region. Therefore, region based information regarding IPV is crucial to make intervention that reduce IPV among pregnant women in the region.

This detail is included in the introduction part of the manuscript as follows ”Harari region has the highest proportion of population who reside in urban (55%) than any other regions in Ethiopia and the majority of its population are Muslim (69%) (Central Statistical Agency 2013). Both residency (Naved and Persson 2008) and religion (Douki et al. 2003) are important factors that can affect the prevalence of IPV. For example, evidence indicated that in some Muslim countries, selective quotes from the Quran may be used to ‘prove’ that it is allowable for a man to ‘beat’ his wife (Douki et al. 2003) indicating the role of religion in promoting social control. Therefore, the generalizability of the study that was conducted in one part of the country might not provide the true prevalence of IPV in the other region as IPV might be affected by within-country differences in cultures and societal norms (Linos et al. 2013) since Ethiopia is a multi-cultural state”

Comment 2: Abstract

Please, correct the sentence: “Variables with a p-value of ≤0.05 were considered to have an association with intimate partner violence during pregnancy

Response 2: This sentence is corrected as follows “Variables with a p-value of ≤0.05 were considered to have a significant association with intimate partner violence during pregnancy”

Comment 3; Introduction

After indicating that Ethiopia is a multi-cultural state, the authors describe dowry as a practice that increases the risk of IPV for women. They also describe two types of dowry with potentially different results for women. However, it is not clear how this practice is in the Harari region

Response 3: The dowry practice in Harari region is similar to Ethiopia. In Harari region, the dowry is given to the bride’s family as cash or cattle. This statement is included in the current version of the manuscript as follows: “The relationship between dowry payment and partner violence has long been established (Batra 1988). Unlike countries in Asia that offer a dowry to the groom’s family (Banerjee 2013), in Ethiopia a dowry of cash or cattle is given to the bride’s family before the marriage (Regassa, Mitiku, and Hailu 2019); this is the practice in Harari region.”

Comment 4: Method

It is not clear if data collection was completed before or after births. Hence, it is not obvious what the authors mean when they say “the most recent pregnancy”? Is it the current pregnancy? In page 13, it seems that some interviews were completed before and other after births. Please, clarify this.

Response 4: Under the participant section, we mentioned, “All women who gave birth in the public hospitals found in the Harari region were included in the eligible study population”. This is to indicate that data collection was conducted on women who gave birth in the hospitals (during postpartum period), not on pregnant women. To avoid confusion, under the “participants” sub section we added this sentences “Participants were recruited following the birth of their baby in the hospitals”. Further, we have replaced the “current pregnancy” with the “most recent pregnancy” in the current manuscript.” We used the most recent pregnancy to indicate that women were asked whether their experienced IPV during their last pregnancy.

Comment 5: It would be necessary to know the format of the questions posed and some examples of them

Response 5: This study is part of larger PhD study to investigate IPV in the region. Although the questionnaire has multiple sections that will be submitted to the University for online publication after the completion of the study, we extracted the part that addressed IPV and summarized this in the table in the methodology section. The questionnaire we have used is adapted for the Ethiopian context, as Ethiopia is one of the countries that was included in WHO multi country study that was conducted in 2005. Therefore, we used the same tool that are commonly being used in Ethiopia by researchers (Mohammed et al. 2017; Yimer et al. 2014; Abebe Abate, Admassu Wossen, and Tilahun Degfie 2016).

Comment 6: Statistical Analysis

This section needs a more detailed description of the steps followed in the analysis. For instance, could you indicate how you set the levels of the outcome to compute the logistic regressions? (i.e., was it used a "yes" or "no" binary category?). Could you indicate the method used to introduce the predictor variables into the analyses? Moreover, it is not clear how and why the authors computed a binary regression and, subsequently, a multiple logistic regression. How did they change an outcome with two levels to more than two levels? The authors need to explain this better?

Response 6: Comment accepted and the following modification was made.

The detail about items used to measure each aspect of IPV was provided in the manuscript under methodology by using table. As it appears on the Table 1, physical IPV was assessed by 6 items, psychological IPV was assessed by 4 items while sexual IPV was assessed by 3 items. All the questions asked were ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ question. Women who reported ‘Yes” for at least one of the physical IPV items were considered to have experienced physical IPV. Similarly, women who responded ‘Yes’ for at least one of the emotional IPV measurement items were considered to have experienced emotional IPV while those who replied “yes’ for at least one of the three sexual IPV items were considered to have Sexual IPV. For overall IPV, women who reported experiencing any types of IPV (whether physical, emotional or sexual) were considered to have IPV during the most recent pregnancy. This overall IPV was used as an outcome and it is categorical variable with only two possible outcomes (Yes and No for IPV).

Regarding analytical statistics, since the outcome variable is a categorical variable we can do both binary logistic regression and multiple logistic regression. In binary logistic regression, we entered variables one by one in the logistic regression model to see its individual associations. However, to conduct multiple logistic regression, we entered more than one variable to get the adjusted relationship between IPV and other explanatory variables. The predictor variables were selected based on the findings of relevant literature as well as statistical significance.

Comment 7: Discussion

The discussion outlines the findings and situates these alongside the reviewed research. The paper also refers to some study limitations. However, the authors could also refer to the consequences of IPV on the health of women and their children as a means to demand more intensely a change in social norms that condone violence. In a social context with such a high acceptance of IPV, hospitals can do more than point out that violence exists. They can focus on the seriousness of the consequences that violence entails in order to start raising awareness. For the future, the authors could find interesting to analyze the consequences of IPV on the health of women and neonates. It is strange that no woman accepted the help offered by the violence she was suffering. Authors should try to explain this

Response 7: This is very important point and we made modifications to address these comments. We agree that hospitals could do more than indicating that violence exists. However, to support awareness creation it is important to know the impact of IPV on adverse pregnancy outcomes using local studies. Therefore, we included recommendations that indicate the importance conducting studies to investigate the consequence of IPV. This is described in the conclusion as follows; “….to support this awareness creation using local evidence, further research that investigate the consequences of IPV on pregnancy outcomes in the Ethiopian context are needed” As mentioned earlier, this is study is part of larger study that include investigating the consequence of IPV. We have aim that investigated the consequence of IPV and the manuscript that was written on the consequence of IPV (adverse pregnancy outcomes) is currently under review. In that manuscript, broader finding-based recommendation that are critically important to address IPV were included.

Furthermore, the explanation regarding why woman do not accept offers was described in relation to attitudes towards IPV in the discussion. It was presented as follows: “… It is important to note that none of the women who experienced IPV in the current study took up the offer of support. Although further study is needed to understand why abused women may not want to get support, this might indicate an overall tolerance of violence within the community and its role in fostering a conducive environment for abusers (Kurz 1989)”.

Response to Reviewer 2

Comment 1: General comment

Authors made an exploratory analysis. I personally think that a hypothesis-based analysis would make more sense. In my opinion, the current approach is a little bit confusing.

Response 1: Although we clearly did not describe all potential variables that were investigated in relation to IPV in the form of a null hypothesis and an alternative hypothesis, our analysis still tested the significance of associations between variables. As was described in Methodology section, we have used previous literature to identify variables potentially associated with IPV and then testing those associations.

In the current manuscript, to clearly indicate this , we included the research question as follows “In other word, the study attempted to address the following question: ‘is there an association between IPV and a given set of sociodemographic factors, marital and behavioural factors, reproductive and physical health-related factors, attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour?.

Comment 2: Abstract

Please, provide the explanation for AOR and CI.

Response 2: We have put the explanation for both AOR and CI as a footnote in Table 6 in the current version of the manuscript.

Comment 3: The second sentence of the conclusion is not necessarily drawn from the results.

Response 3: We corrected the conclusion as per the reviewer’s recommendation as follows: “The prevalence of intimate partner violence during pregnancy was found to be high. Pregnancy monitoring programs, which can detect and intervene with regard to partner’s controlling behaviors and women’s perception regarding justification of IPV, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy, could help to reduce IPV. Further, changing social norms that condone violence through advocacy and awareness creation might help in preventing partner violence”

Comment 4: Introduction:

The first paragraph does not seem necessary to me.

Response 4: The first paragraph talks about the definition of IPV used in the current manuscript. We felt that this is important to introduce the reader with the concept of IPV, how it was defined and which definition is used in this manuscript. We have therefore opted to leave the paragraph.

Comment 5: The paragraph on page 4 that begins with “The relationship between dowry payment…” should be revised. From my point of view, too much importance is given to dowry as a explanatory factor, but then not throughout the text. Perhaps it is only necessary to comment that some factors related to IPV during pregnancy have been identified and give some examples. In the current version, it is not known whether the factors cited are related to IPV or IPV during pregnancy

Response 5: It is true that although we mentioned other factors that are associated with IPV, we gave more emphasis to dowry practices. And as per Reviewer 1, comment, we have clarified the importance of dowry in Ethiopia. We did this to introduce the reader to dowry practices in the Ethiopian context because we have used this variable for calculating sample size.

Comment 6: Methods:

The first section could be entitled "Study design" and include soon the mention to "cross-sectional study".

Response 6: Comment accepted and corrected in the current version as follows: “Study design: cross-sectional survey of women attending public hospitals found in the Harari region was conducted from 25 November 2018 to 28 April 2019”.

Comment 7: The dowry payment exposure was used to calculate the sample size, but it is not known why and, in any case, an estimate of its magnitude is lacked.

Response 7: This study is part of larger study that investigated the magnitude, associated factors, attitudes and outcomes of IPV during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia. The sample size that addresses all aims was calculated by using two scenarios (the single proportion population formula and associated factors). Obtained from previous literature, the prevalence of IPV, and proportion of women with attitude supportive of IPV were used to calculate sample size and the largest sample size (from the two proportion) was identified. Similarly, for associated factors, we have used variable that gave us larger sample size considering associated factors of IPV, factors associated with having a perception that justify IPV and pregnancy outcomes. From overall sample size calculated including sample size calculated by using single population proportion formula, the sample size calculated using dowry practice gave us largest sample size. Therefore we used it for calculating overall sample size. As we never used the proportion of dowry practices to calculate sample size, we do not think that it is important to mention the prevalence of dowry practices in this method. That is why we described dowry practice as a factor rather than describing its proportion.

Comment 8: How many items does the questionnaire have? How many for each type of violence? Could you provide details of its validity?

Response 8: Overall, there are 13 items used to assess IPV. Physical IPV was assessed by 6 items, psychological IPV was measured by 4 items while sexual IPV was measured by 3 items. This questionnaire was adapted from WHO multi-country study questionnaire. WHO conducted study to provide the overall global prevalence of violence against women in 2005, and Ethiopia was one of the countries that was included in this global study. The overall questionnaire was adapted to the Ethiopian context by removing some of the items that could not be applied in Ethiopia context, as described in the Methodology section of WHO study. These items included questions that were designed to addresses the impact of violence on mental health. However, specific items that measured IPV were found to be valid in the Ethiopian context and none of them were removed. This questionnaire has been widely used by different researchers in Ethiopia to study IPV (Mohammed et al. 2017; Yimer et al. 2014; Abebe Abate, Admassu Wossen, and Tilahun Degfie 2016).

For clarity, we have included the items used to measure IPV in the manuscript in Methodology (Table 1).

Comment 9: Generally, there are too many variables. I believe that a selection could be made with the most relevant according to the scientific literature and the most explanatory according to the preliminary analyses.

Response 9: We agree with the reviewer. As mentioned previously, we have collected many variables that are intended to address all outcomes we were looking to address in the wider study. Although some of them can provide further descriptions about the population, it is not necessary to include all of them in the current manuscript. Therefore, we removed some of the details that were addressed in other manuscripts. For example, we removed some of the variables that are related to pregnancy outcome as we have another manuscript dedicated to this.

Specific to the variables entered in to the multiple logistic regression, first we did not included all variables in the binary logistic regression. It is true that model with more variables presents less statistical power, which can lead to wrong conclusion. To avoid this, we first fitted binary logistic regression using relevant variables that were only supported by previous literature. Then, we observed its level of significant in bivariate analysis and variable with a p-value of ≤0.05 were transported to the multiple logistic regression. In addition, there were variables that were significant but were not transferred to multiple logistic regression (E.g. gravidity). This decision was made because parity and gravidity are similar concepts and the variables were highly correlated. Therefore, we excluded gravidity from multivariate analysis. Overall, we have used a combination of statistical significance and relevant literature to determine variables that were entered into the logistic regression model.

To address this, the methodology section of the manuscript was edited as follow: “three logistic regression models were fitted to investigate the associated factors of IPV. In the first model (Model 1), binary logistic regression was conducted to determine associations between IPV and potential explanatory variables. All potential explanatory variables that were fitted in binary logistic regression were obtained from relevant literature. In the second model (Model 2), variables (excluding attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour) that demonstrated a significant association (with a p-value of �0.05) in bivariate analysis were exported to a multiple logistic regression model for multivariate analysis”.

Comment 10: Results:

I would prefer to see the first tables and figures with the total percentages (like now), but also the percentages according to having suffered from IPV (and not). That is, three columns, one with total n (%), one with n (%) for those without IPV, and another column for those with IPV. A fourth column can be displayed with p-values.

Response 10: Comment accepted and appropriate changes made.

Comment 11: Figures mixing absolute and relative values don't make much sense

Response 11: Comment accepted and corrected. The figures were described by percentages only

Comment 12: In Table 5, mixing the variables that reflect the partner’s control and the attitude towards IPV with the other variables is confusing for me. There may be overlapping issues and it does not help to understand the phenomenon. These two variables could be used to make strata, and study the effect of the other variables on them. In sum, these variables could be on the causal pathway.

Response 12: Comment accepted and modified as per reviewer’s recommendation.

In this study, we were not interested in conducting pathway analysis. Rather, we included partner control and women’s attitudes towards IPV with other variables considering that all variables can independently contribute for IPV. This approach was used in a number of previous studies (Black, E., Worth, H., Clarke, S. et al. Prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence against women in conflict affected northern Uganda: a cross-sectional study. Confl Health 13, 35 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-019-0219-8, Tlapek, S. M. (2015) ‘Women’s Status and Intimate Partner Violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo’, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(14), pp. 2526–2540. doi: 10.1177/0886260514553118, Shai N, Pradhan GD, Chirwa E, Shrestha R, Adhikari A, Kerr-Wilson A (2019) Factors associated with IPV victimisation of women and perpetration by men in migrant communities of Nepal. PLoS ONE 14(7): e0210258. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210258). However, in the current version of the manuscript, we constructed three different models. The first model contains bivariate analysis of all variables, while the second model contain all variables found to have significant associations in bivariate analysis, excluding attitude towards IPV and controlling behaviour. The last (third) model included all variables found to have significant associations, including attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour. Within both multivariate models, there was no big change in terms of effect size though duration of marriage that had become insignificant in model 2 became significant in Model 3. To investigate whether attitude towards IPV and partner controlling behaviour moderates the duration of marriage, the interaction analysis was done but it was not significant. Therefore, we did not include this interaction term in the model, as it was not significant. The discussion was made based on the final model (Model 3).

Comment 13 : Some of them are not based on results. Some are general comments, probably true, but not followed directly from this study. From this work it can be concluded, for instance, that a pregnancy monitoring program is necessary, which can detect partner’s control behaviors and women justification of IPV, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy.

Response 13: Comment accepted and the conclusion is modified based on reviewer’s suggestion. The conclusion was re-stated as follows: “The prevalence of IPV during pregnancy is high; two in five women experienced IPV during their most recent pregnancy. Pregnancy monitoring programs, which can detect and intervene with regard to partner’s controlling behaviors and women’s perception regarding justification of IPV, especially in those women with an unplanned pregnancy, could help to reduce IPV. Further, changing social norms that condone violence through advocacy and awareness creation might help in preventing partner violence (Wagman et al. 2018; Rivas et al. 2015). To support this awareness creation using local evidence, further researches that investigate the consequence of IPV on pregnancy outcomes are needed. Law enforcement agencies should strictly implement legislation that prevents violence against women, which in the long term will aid in creating societies that do not tolerate violence (World Health Organization 2010).

We have used these references to justify our responses.

References

Abebe Abate, B., B. Admassu Wossen, and T. Tilahun Degfie. 2016. 'Determinants of intimate partner violence during pregnancy among married women in Abay Chomen district, Western Ethiopia: a community based cross sectional study', BMC women's health, 16: 16.

Banerjee, Priya R. 2013. 'Dowry in 21st-Century India: The Sociocultural Face of Exploitation', Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15: 34-40.

Batra, N. D. 1988. 'Why this growing atrocities on women?', Yojana, 32: 32-4.

Central Statistical Agency. 2013. "Population Projection of Ethiopia for All Regions At Wereda Level from 2014 – 2017." In, edited by Federal Demographic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency. Addis Ababa: Central Statistical Agency

CSA [Ethiopia], and ICF. 2016. " Ethiopia Demographic and Health Survey 2016. , ." In. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and Rockville, Maryland, USA.

Douki, S., F. Nacef, A. Belhadj, A. Bouasker, and R. Ghachem. 2003. 'Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries', Arch Womens Ment Health, 6: 165-71.

Kassa, Zemenu Yohannes, and Alemu Workineh Menale. 2016. 'Physical violence and associated factors during pregnancy in Yirgalem town, South Ethiopia', Current Pediatric Research, 20: 37-42.

Kurz, Demie. 1989. 'SOCIAL SCIENCE PERSPECTIVES ON WIFE ABUSE:: Current Debates and Future Directions', Gender & Society, 3: 489-505.

Lencha, B., G. Ameya, G. Baresa, Z. Minda, and G. Ganfure. 2019. 'Intimate partner violence and its associated factors among pregnant women in Bale Zone, Southeast Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study', PLoS One, 14: e0214962.

Linos, Natalia, Natalie Slopen, S. V. Subramanian, Lisa Berkman, and Ichiro Kawachi. 2013. 'Influence of Community Social Norms on Spousal Violence: A Population-Based Multilevel Study of Nigerian Women', American Journal of Public Health, 103: 148-55.

Mohammed, B. H., J. M. Johnston, J. I. Harwell, H. Yi, K. W. K. Tsang, and J. A. Haidar. 2017. 'Intimate partner violence and utilization of maternal health care services in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia', BMC Health Serv Res, 17.

Naved, R. T., and L. A. Persson. 2008. 'Factors associated with physical spousal abuse of women during pregnancy in Bangladesh', Int Fam Plan Perspect, 34: 71-8.

Regassa, Megersa, Terefe Mitiku, and Waktole Hailu. 2019. 'Addooyyee: Girl’s Indigenous Friendship Institution in Oromoo, Ethiopia', International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6.

Rivas, C., J. Ramsay, L. Sadowski, L. L. Davidson, D. Dunne, S. Eldridge, K. Hegarty, A. Taft, and G. Feder. 2015. 'Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse', Cochrane Database Syst Rev: Cd005043.

Wagman, J. A., R. H. Gray, N. Nakyanjo, K. A. McClendon, E. Bonnevie, F. Namatovu, G. Kigozi, J. Kagaayi, M. J. Wawer, and F. Nalugoda. 2018. 'Process evaluation of the SHARE intervention for preventing intimate partner violence and HIV infection in Rakai, Uganda', Eval Program Plann, 67: 129-37.

World Health Organization. 2010. "Violence prevention: The Evidence." In. Geneva: World Health Organisatioon.

Yimer, Tenaw, Tesfaye Gobena, Gudina Egata, and Habtamu Mellie. 2014. 'Magnitude of Domestic Violence and Associated Factors among Pregnant Women in Hulet Ejju Enessie District, Northwest Ethiopia', Advances in Public Health, 2014: 8.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

José J López-Goñi

12 May 2020

PONE-D-19-32908R1

High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mr. Musa,

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.

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

Thank you very much for your work and effort. As the reviewers have said, the main concerns have been addressed. In this round of review, the reviewer 2 has made two comments. Please consider them because they could improve the final version of the manuscript.

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

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jun 26 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

José J. López-Goñi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Thank you very much for your work and effort. As the reviewers have said, the main concerns have been addressed. In this round of review, the reviewer 2 has made two comments. Please consider them because they could improve the final version of the manuscript.

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

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 #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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 #2: 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 #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed my primary concerns, thank you. Now, I only have two comments:

Thank you for putting the explanation for both AOR and CI as a footnote in Table 6, but I think that it also be helpful in the abstract.

Thank you very much for the explanation regardign sample size calculation. I sugges to add some of your comments. For expample: The sample size was calculated using significant factors of partner violence during pregnancy obtained from a previous study conducted in Ethiopia [16]. Dowry payment maximized sample size, therefore we used it as exposure variable for calculations….

**********

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: Yes: Rosaura Gonzalez-Mendez

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 4;15(6):e0233907. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233907.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 May 2020

Dear Editors

We appreciate your effort in considering our article for further review. We also thank the reviewers for taking time to review the manuscript again. We have made the required changes to the manuscript and have summarized our responses to Reviewr-2 as follow:

Comments and Responses (Reviewer 2)

Comment 1: Thank you for putting the explanation for both AOR and CI as a footnote in Table 6, but I think that it also be helpful in the abstract

Response 1: Comment accepted, both AOR and CI were written in full statement in the current manuscript abstract

Comment 2:I suggest to add some of your comments. For example: The sample size was calculated using significant factors of partner violence during pregnancy obtained from a previous study conducted in Ethiopia [16]. Dowry payment maximized sample size, therefore we used it as exposure variable for calculations…

Response 2: Comment accepted. The section is modified as follows: The sample size was calculated using significant factors of partner violence during pregnancy obtained from a previous study conducted in Ethiopia [16]. Dowry payment maximized sample size; therefore, we used it as the exposure variable for calculating sample size considering the following parameters: dowry payment as the exposure variable, power level of 80%, and the ratio of unexposed to exposed of 1.0….

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers2 .docx

Decision Letter 2

José J López-Goñi

15 May 2020

High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study

PONE-D-19-32908R2

Dear Dr. Musa,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

José J. López-Goñi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

José J López-Goñi

19 May 2020

PONE-D-19-32908R2

High rate of partner violence during pregnancy in eastern Ethiopia: Findings from a facility-based study

Dear Dr. Musa:

I am 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 notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. José J. López-Goñi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers2 .docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES