1- Counseling and Reproductive Health Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran
2- Counseling and Reproductive Health Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran ,kosaramini97@gmail.com
3- Health Management and Social Development Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran
2- Counseling and Reproductive Health Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran ,
3- Health Management and Social Development Research Center, Golestan University of Medical Sciences, Gorgan, Iran
Abstract: (17 Views)
Background: Domestic violence is a pervasive issue characterized by a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors within an intimate relationship. While traditional gendered models often portray males as perpetrators and females as victims, this perspective oversimplifies the complex reality of intimate partner violence (IPV). Research indicates that domestic violence can affect individuals of any gender. Therefore, this study aims to examine domestic violence as it is experienced by both males and females.
Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated 240 cohabiting couples in Gorgan, northern Iran, in 2022. The researchers used a simple random sampling method, facilitated by R software (version 4.4.2) and the national electronic health information system, to identify eligible participants. Participants included females aged 20–49 and their husbands, all of whom had been married for at least two years. Data were collected via the online, self-administered Persian version of the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2), which measures the following subscales of conflict: Psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury. Data analysis included descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and qualitative statistics (frequency and percentage). The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to compare mean scores between groups, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: This study's findings revealed that 52.8% of couples (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.72–58.45) experienced domestic violence. The research further specified the prevalence of various forms of violence as follows: Bilateral violence: 25% (95% CI: 19.48–30.52), male-to-female partner violence (MFPV): 19.58% (95% CI: 14.53–26.64), and female-to-male violence (FMPV): 7.5% (95% CI: 4.14–10.86). The most frequently reported types of abuse were psychological aggression (male: 5.0 ± 3.48; female: 5.07 ± 3.67) and sexual coercion (male: 2.71 ± 1.8; female: 2.93 ± 2.42).
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that IPV can be perpetrated by any individual within a relationship, regardless of gender. Consequently, educational initiatives and screening programs should be developed to include both members of a couple, instead of being focused on a single individual. These findings can be utilized by healthcare professionals to develop more comprehensive prevention strategies and to enhance the effectiveness of existing screening protocols for IPV.
Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated 240 cohabiting couples in Gorgan, northern Iran, in 2022. The researchers used a simple random sampling method, facilitated by R software (version 4.4.2) and the national electronic health information system, to identify eligible participants. Participants included females aged 20–49 and their husbands, all of whom had been married for at least two years. Data were collected via the online, self-administered Persian version of the Conflict Tactics Scale 2 (CTS2), which measures the following subscales of conflict: Psychological aggression, physical assault, sexual coercion, and injury. Data analysis included descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) and qualitative statistics (frequency and percentage). The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed to compare mean scores between groups, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: This study's findings revealed that 52.8% of couples (95% confidence interval [CI]: 40.72–58.45) experienced domestic violence. The research further specified the prevalence of various forms of violence as follows: Bilateral violence: 25% (95% CI: 19.48–30.52), male-to-female partner violence (MFPV): 19.58% (95% CI: 14.53–26.64), and female-to-male violence (FMPV): 7.5% (95% CI: 4.14–10.86). The most frequently reported types of abuse were psychological aggression (male: 5.0 ± 3.48; female: 5.07 ± 3.67) and sexual coercion (male: 2.71 ± 1.8; female: 2.93 ± 2.42).
Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that IPV can be perpetrated by any individual within a relationship, regardless of gender. Consequently, educational initiatives and screening programs should be developed to include both members of a couple, instead of being focused on a single individual. These findings can be utilized by healthcare professionals to develop more comprehensive prevention strategies and to enhance the effectiveness of existing screening protocols for IPV.
Keywords: Domestic violence, Intimate partner violence, Perpetrator of violence, Victim of violence, Iran
Type of study: Original Article |
Subject:
Midwifery
References
1. Boches DJ, Cooney M. What Counts as "Violence?" Semantic Divergence in Cultural Conflicts. Deviant Behav. 2023;44(2):175-89. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. Blom N, Fadeeva A, Barbosa EC. The Concept and Measurement of Violence and Abuse in Health and Justice Fields: Toward a Framework Aligned with the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Social Sciences. 2023;12(6):316. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Huecker MR, King KC, Jordan GA, Smock W. Domestic Violence. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023. [View at paplisher] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
4. Houseman B, L. Kopitnik N, Semien G. Florida Domestic Violence. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023. [View at Publisher] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
5. Domesticviolenceresearch.org. Facts and statistics on domestic violence at-a- glance Domesticviolenceresearch.org; [Available from: https://domesticviolenceresearch.org/domestic-violence-facts-and-statistics-at-a-glance/.
6. Purbarrar F, Khani S, Emami Zeydi A, Cherati JY. A review of the challenges of screening for domestic violence against women from the perspective of health professionals. J Educ Health Promot. 2023;12(1):183. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
7. Sardinha L, Maheu-Giroux M, Stöckl H, Meyer SR, García-Moreno C. Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. Lancet. 2022;399(10327):803-13. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
8. Kolbe V, Büttner A. Domestic Violence Against Men-Prevalence and Risk Factors. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2020;117(31-32):534-41. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
9. Straus MA, Hamby SL, Boney-McCoy S, Sugarman DB. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2) development and preliminary psychometric data. J Fam Issues. 1996;17(3):283-316. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10. Straus MA. The Conflict Tactics Scales and Its Critics: Evaluation and New Data on Validity and Reliability. Physical Violence in American Families.1990:26. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11. Chapman H, Gillespie SM. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): A review of the properties, reliability, and validity of the CTS2 as a measure of partner abuse in community and clinical samples. Aggress Violent Behav. 2019;44:27-35. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. Panaghi L, Dehghani M, Abbasi M, Mohammadi S, Maleki G. Investigating reliability, validity and factor structure of the revised conflict tactics scale. Journal of Family Research. 2011;7(1):103-7. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
13. Sohanian HM, Faizi I. Description of Domestic Violence in the Iranian Family. Research in Deviance and Social Problems Year:2023;2(6):1-31. [View at Publisher] [Google Scholar]
14. Ahmadi Gohari M, Baneshi MR, Zolala F, Garrusi B, Salarpour E, Samari M. Prevalence of Domestic Violence against Women and Its Visibility in Southeast Iran. Iran J Public Health. 2023;52(3):646-54. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
15. Christaki C, Orovou O, Dagla D, Sarantaki S, Moriati M, Kirkou K, et al. Domestic Violence During Women's Life in Developing Countries. Mater Sociomed. 2023;35(1):58-64. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
16. Dehkordi AH, Heydari H. The Prevalence of Domestic Violence in Iran: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Jundishapur Journal of Chronic Disease Care. 2024;14(1):e138870. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17. Kamalikhah T, Mehri A, Gharibi F, Rouhani-Tonekaboni N, Japelaghi M, Dadgar E. Prevalence and related factors of intimate partner violence among married women in Garmsar, Iran. J Inj Violence Res. 2022;14(3):165-72. [View at paplisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
18. Bekela Gadisa T, Angasu Kitaba K, Gelan Negesa M. Prevalence and factors associated with domestic violence against married women in Mana District, Jimma zone, Southwest Ethiopia: A community-Based Cross-Sectional study. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences. 2022;17:100480. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19. Bezgin S, Buzlu S. Domestic Violence: Views of Married Men and Factors Affecting Violence. J Community Health Nurs. 2023;40(3):207-18. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
20. You S, Kwon M. Influence of Direct and Indirect Domestic Violence on Dating Violence Victimization. J Interpers Violence. 2023;38(5-6):5092-110. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
21. Kisa S, Gungor R, Kisa A. Domestic Violence Against Women in North African and Middle Eastern Countries: A Scoping Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023;24(2):549-75. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
22. McLeod DA, Ozturk B, Butler-King RL, Peek H. Male Survivors of Domestic Violence, Challenges in Cultural Response, and Impact on Identity and Help-Seeking Behaviors: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024;25(2):1397-1410. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
23. Moshtagh M, Amiri R, Sharafi S, Arab-Zozani M. Intimate partner violence in the Middle East region: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023;24(2):613-31. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
24. Milberg A, Liljeroos M, Wåhlberg R, Krevers B. Sense of support within the family: a cross-sectional study of family members in palliative home care. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;19(1):120. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
25. Hine B, Noku L, Bates EA, Jayes K. But, Who Is the Victim Here? Exploring Judgments Toward Hypothetical Bidirectional Domestic Violence Scenarios. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37(7-8):Np5495-np516. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
26. Machado A, Sousa C, Cunha O. Bidirectional Violence in Intimate Relationships: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024;25(2):1680-94. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
27. Hine B, Bates EA, Wallace S. I Have Guys Call Me and Say 'I Can't Be the Victim of Domestic Abuse: Exploring the Experiences of Telephone Support Providers for Male Victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse. J Interpers Violence. 2022;37(7-8):Np5594-np625. [View at Publisher] [DOI] [PMID] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |