Implementing a New Tool to Predict the Risk of Intimate Partner Violence in Rural China

Evaluating Measures of Intimate Partner Violence Using Consensus-Based Standards of Validity

The assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) by mental health, medical, and criminal justice practitioners occurs routinely. The validity of the assessment instrument they use impacts practitioners' ability to judge ongoing risk, establish the type of IPV occurring, protect potential victims, and intervene effectively. Yet, there is no known compendium of existing assessment measures. The purpose of this article is threefold: (1) to present a systematic review of measures used to identify or predict IPV, (2) to determine which of these measures have psychometric evidence to support their use, and (3) to determine whether any existing measure is capable of differentiating between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism. A systematic search was conducted using PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, PubMed, and MEDLINE. Studies on the reliability or validity of specific measures of IPV were included, regardless of format, length, discipline, or type of IPV assessed. A total of 222 studies, on the psychometric properties of 87 unique measures, met our a priori criteria and were included in the review. We described the reliability and validity of the 87 measures. We rated the measures based on the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments-revised criteria and other established validity criteria, which allowed us to generate a list of recommended measures. We also discussed measures designed to differentiate IPV types. We conclude by describing the strengths and weaknesses of existing measures and by suggesting new avenues for researchers to enhance the assessment of IPV.

The characteristics of husbands and violence against women in Wuhan, China: a cross-sectional study

Objective

To explore the prevalence and correlation between husbands and lifetime domestic violence (DV) among women in Wuhan, China.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted in a community health center in Wuhan from June 2015 to December 2015. A total of 1015 women who came to the center for gynecological examination were selected through a random sampling. They were assessed using the WHO Violence Against Women Instrument to evaluate the prevalence of DV. The chi-square test, the Wilcoxon rank test, and unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression analyses were used to analyze the possible risk or protective factors for DV.

Results

The lifetime prevalence of DV was 29.36% (298/1015). The risk factors included heavy physical labor (OR 3.54, 95% CI 1.63–7.77), long-term drinking (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.19–2.14), overweight or obesity (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01–1.88) and long-term smoking (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.04). Higher education was a protective factor (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66–0.96).

Conclusion

Women whose husbands had lower education, performed heavy physical labor, were long-term alcohol consumers, had overweight or obesity, and were long-term smokers were vulnerable to lifetime DV.