Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence Among Men and Women in an Inner City Emergency Department

University of Michigan, Rachel Upjohn Building, 4250 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48105, USA.
Journal of Addictive Diseases (Impact Factor: 1.46). 10/2009; 28(4):366-81. DOI: 10.1080/10550880903183018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The current study surveyed medical or injured patients (men and women) in an inner city emergency department to examine the rates and correlates of intimate partner violence, including substance use patterns. Over a 2-year period, participants (n = 10,744) self-administered a computerized health survey during their emergency department visit that included screening items regarding past year history of intimate partner violence (including victimization and aggression). Overall, rates of any intimate partner violence involvement in past year were 8.7% (7.3% victimization and 4.4% aggression); however, women were more likely than men to report intimate partner violence. When examining participants' substance use patterns, participants who reported using both alcohol and cocaine were most likely to report intimate partner violence. Predictors of partner aggression and victimization were remarkably similar. This article provides unique data regarding correlates of past year intimate partner violence history among a comprehensive sample of male and female emergency department patients presenting for medical complaints or injury.

Download full-text


Available from: Maureen A Walton, Mar 10, 2015
  • Source
    • "In the current sample, approximately 53% of participants indicated that they had been involved in violence toward others while 58% reported that they had been the victim of violence by a partner, non-partner, or both. The prevalence of both past six-month IPV and NPV found in this ED SUD sample is higher than prior ED studies assessing past year IPV and NPV (Cunningham et al., 2003, 2007, 2009; Walton et al., 2007, 2009a, 2009b), likely due to the present studies' focus on those with active SUDs. In addition, a more comprehensive violence measure was used compared to most previous studies. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The study examined clinical characteristics and treatment interests of individuals identified to have substance use disorders (SUDs) in an urban emergency department (ED) who reported past six-month history of violence or victimization. Specifically, participants were 1441 ED patients enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of interventions designed to link those with SUDs to treatment. To examine factors related to violence type, four groups based on participants' reports of violence toward others were created: no violence (46.8%), partner violence only (17.3%), non-partner violence only (20.2%), and both partner and non-partner violence (15.7%). Four groups based on participants' reports of victimization were also created: no violence (42.1%), victimization from partner only (18.7%), victimization from non-partner only (20.2%), and both partner and non-partner victimization (17.7%). Separate multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine which variables distinguished the violence and victimization groups from those reporting no violence or victimization. For violence toward others, demographic variables, alcohol and cocaine disorders, and rating treatment for psychological problems were higher for violence groups, with some differences depending on the type of violence. For victimization, demographic variables, having an alcohol disorder, and rating treatment for family/social problems were higher for violence groups, also with some differences depending on the type of violence. Findings from the present study could be useful for designing effective brief interventions and services for ED settings.
    Addictive behaviors 10/2013; DOI:10.1016/j.addbeh.2013.10.004 · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Although, on the surface, it may seem fair to ask all men about IPV in addition to all women, evidence shows that women are disproportionately affected by IPV compared to men [23-25]. Men are also less likely to admit that they are victims of abuse and less likely to seek help, making identifying IPV in men a greater challenge [26]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious health issue. There have been widespread research efforts in the area of IPV over the past several decades, primarily focusing on obstetrics, emergency medicine, and primary care settings. Until recently there has been a paucity of research focusing on IPV in surgery, and thus a resultant knowledge gap. Renewed interest in the underlying risk of IPV among women with musculoskeletal injuries has fueled several important studies to determine the nature and scope of this issue in orthopaedic surgery. Our review summarizes the evidence from surgical research in the field of IPV and provides recommendations for developing and evaluating an IPV identification and support program and opportunities for future research.
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 01/2013; 14(1):23. DOI:10.1186/1471-2474-14-23 · 1.90 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Approximately 1% to 7% of all female patients who present to the Emergency Department (ED) do so on account of an acute episode of physical abuse by their intimate partner (Anglin and Sachs, 2003). Not surprisingly, EDbased studies have found alcohol misuse and heavy drinking (on the part of the victim and/ or perpetrator) to be strong predictors of IPV (Walton et al., 2009) and injury (Grisso et al., 1999; Kyriacou et al., 1999). Few ED studies of IPV, however, have analyzed how aspects of the neighborhood environment may increase risk for injury (e.g., Grisso et al., 1999), and none have considered the contribution of alcohol outlet density. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous research has identified risk factors for intimate partner violence (IPV) severity, injury, and emergency department (ED) visits. These risk factors have been shown at both the individual level (heavy drinking and other substance use on the part of 1 or both partners) and the neighborhood level (residence in an area characterized by poverty and social disadvantage). Alcohol outlet density has been linked with assaultive violence in community settings, but has not been analyzed in relation to IPV-related ED visits. This study examined the effects of outlet densities on IPV-related ED visits throughout California between July 2005 and December 2008. Half-yearly counts of ED visits related to IPV (E-code 967.3) were computed for each zip code from patient-level public data sets. Alcohol outlet density measures, calculated separately for bars, off-premise outlets, and restaurants, were derived from California Alcohol Beverage Control records. Census-based neighborhood demographic characteristics previously shown to be related to health disparities and IPV (percent black, percent Hispanic, percentage below 150% of poverty line, percent unemployed) were included in models. This study used Bayesian space-time models that allow longitudinal analysis at the zip code level despite frequent boundary redefinitions. These spatial misalignment models control for spatial variation in geographic unit definitions over time and account for spatial autocorrelation using conditional autoregressive (CAR) priors. The model incorporated data from between 1,686 (2005) and 1,693 (2008) zip codes across California for 7 half-year time periods from 2005 through 2008 (n = 11,836). Density of bars was positively associated with IPV-related ED visits. Density of off-premise outlets was negatively associated with IPV-related ED visits; this association was weaker and smaller than the bar association. There was no association between density of restaurants and IPV-related ED visits. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which environmental factors, such as alcohol outlet density, affect IPV behaviors resulting in ED visits.
    Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research 02/2012; 36(5):847-53. DOI:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2011.01683.x · 3.31 Impact Factor
Show more