Medical Journal of The Islamic Republic of Iran (MJIRI)
Iran University of Medical Sciences
Thu, Nov 21, 2024
[Archive]
Volume 38, Issue 1 (1-2024)
Med J Islam Repub Iran 2024 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Ghahramani S, Najjari B, Bayattork R, Arab-Zozani M. Prevalence and Factor Influencing Intimate Partner Violence against Women during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2024; 38 (1) :733-744
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9257-en.html
URL: http://mjiri.iums.ac.ir/article-1-9257-en.html
Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran & 3. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Expert Group (SRMEG), Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN), Tehran, Iran , arab.hta@gmail.com
Abstract: (190 Views)
Background: It seems that the prevalence of intimate partner violence increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. To investigate the prevalence of different types of IPV and its contributing factors on a global scale during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study. This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All original studies, written in English that reported the overall prevalence of IPV or at least one type of IPV against women during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this study. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in July 2023. Our general keywords included "Intimate Partner Violence", "Spouse Abuse", "Domestic Violence", "COVID-19", and "SARS-CoV-2". We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist to assess the quality of all included studies. We conducted a random effect model for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method in comprehensive meta-analysis software Version 3. Each type of IPV is calculated as an event rate with a 95% CI for each variable. The I2 statistic test was used to assess the Heterogeneity.
Results: Forty-one studies encompassing 14,615 participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in our study. The overall prevalence of IPV was 31% (95% CI: [24.2, 38.8], P < 0.001). Based on type, the highest rate of IPV in the included studies was reported for psychological type (33%, 95% CI: [23.4, 44.3], P = 0.004). The rates of IPV for economic, physical, and sexual types were 19.1% (95% CI: [12.2, 28.6], P < 0.001), 9.5% (95% CI: [6.8, 13.1], P < 0.001), and 8.5% (95% CI: [6.2, 11.7], P < 0.001), respectively. Age, education level, being pregnant, and marital duration were among the most frequent influencing factors.
Conclusion: About one-third of women experienced IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological IPV emerged as the most prevalent type in the included studies. The most important factors were environmental, social, economic, cultural, and political factors. Age, education level, marital duration, being pregnant, and marital duration were among the most frequent influencing factors.
Methods: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis study. This study followed the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. All original studies, written in English that reported the overall prevalence of IPV or at least one type of IPV against women during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this study. PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched in July 2023. Our general keywords included "Intimate Partner Violence", "Spouse Abuse", "Domestic Violence", "COVID-19", and "SARS-CoV-2". We used the Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist to assess the quality of all included studies. We conducted a random effect model for meta-analysis using the Mantel-Haenszel method in comprehensive meta-analysis software Version 3. Each type of IPV is calculated as an event rate with a 95% CI for each variable. The I2 statistic test was used to assess the Heterogeneity.
Results: Forty-one studies encompassing 14,615 participants met our eligibility criteria and were included in our study. The overall prevalence of IPV was 31% (95% CI: [24.2, 38.8], P < 0.001). Based on type, the highest rate of IPV in the included studies was reported for psychological type (33%, 95% CI: [23.4, 44.3], P = 0.004). The rates of IPV for economic, physical, and sexual types were 19.1% (95% CI: [12.2, 28.6], P < 0.001), 9.5% (95% CI: [6.8, 13.1], P < 0.001), and 8.5% (95% CI: [6.2, 11.7], P < 0.001), respectively. Age, education level, being pregnant, and marital duration were among the most frequent influencing factors.
Conclusion: About one-third of women experienced IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological IPV emerged as the most prevalent type in the included studies. The most important factors were environmental, social, economic, cultural, and political factors. Age, education level, marital duration, being pregnant, and marital duration were among the most frequent influencing factors.
Type of Study: Original Research: Clinical Science |
Subject:
Health
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
