Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
http://tva.sagepub.com/Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
http://tva.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/12/23/1524838013515758The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1524838013515758
published online 26 December 2013Trauma Violence AbuseKirsten Beyer, Anne Baber Wallis and L. Kevin Hamberger
Neighborhood Environment and Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at:Trauma, Violence, & AbuseAdditional services and information for
http://tva.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://tva.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Dec 26, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Article
Neighborhood Environment and IntimatePartner Violence: A Systematic Review
Kirsten Beyer1, Anne Baber Wallis2, and L. Kevin Hamberger3
AbstractIntimate partner violence (IPV) is an important global public health problem, affecting women across the life span and increasing riskfor a number of unfavorable health outcomes. Typically conceptualized as a private form of violence, most research has focused onindividual-level risk markers. Recently, more scholarly attention has been paid to the role that the residential neighborhood envi-ronment may play in influencing the occurrence of IPV. With research accumulating since the 1990s, increasing prominence of thetopic, and no comprehensive literature reviews yet undertaken, it is time to take stock of what is known, what remains unknown,and the methods and concepts investigators have considered. In this article, we undertake a comprehensive, systematic review of theliterature to date on the relationship between neighborhood environment and IPV, asking, ‘‘what is the status of scholarship relatedto the association between neighborhood environment and IPV occurrence?’’ Although the literature is young, it is receiving increas-ing attention from researchers in sociology, public health, criminology, and other fields. Obvious gaps in the literature include limitedconsideration of nonurban areas, limited theoretical motivation, and limited consideration of the range of potential contributors toenvironmental effects on IPV—such as built environmental factors or access to services. In addition, explanations of the pathways bywhich place influences the occurrence of IPV draw mainly from social disorganization theory that was developed in urban settings inthe United States and may need to be adapted, especially to be useful in explaining residential environmental correlates of IPV in ruralor non-U.S. settings. A more complete theoretical understanding of the relationship between neighborhood environment and IPV,especially considering differences among urban, semiurban, and rural settings and developed and developing country settings, will benecessary to advance research questions and improve policy and intervention responses to reduce the burden of IPV.
Keywordsdomestic violence, cultural contexts, community violence
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important global pub-
lic health problem, affecting women across the life span and
increasing the risk for a number of unfavorable health out-
comes, including chronic pain, depression and other mental
health problems, adverse birth outcomes, and death (Car-
men, Rieker, & Mills, 1984; Garcia-Moreno, Jansen, Ells-
berg, Heise, & Watts, 2006; Haber, 1985; Heise, Ellsberg,
& Gottmoeller, 2002; Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi,
2002; Saltzman, Johnson, Gilbert, & Goodwin, 2003; Watts
& Zimmerman, 2002). The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) in the United States has noted that IPV
includes ‘‘physical violence, sexual violence, threats of
physical or sexual violence, stalking and psychological
aggression (including coercive tactics) by a current or for-
mer intimate partner’’ (Black et al., 2011, p. 37).
Recent CDC data indicate that about 36% of women and 29%of men in the United States have experienced rape, physical vio-
lence, or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, and
nearly half of all women and men have experienced psychological
battering by an intimate partner in their lifetime (Black et al.,
2011). When asked about the prior year, about 6% of women and
5% of men said they were raped, physically assaulted, and/or
stalked by an intimate partner (Black et al., 2011). Rates of vio-
lence are known to vary among racial and ethnic groups (Cunradi,
Caetano, Clark, & Schafer, 2000; Jones et al., 1999) and by geo-
graphy (Alhabib, Nur, & Jones, 2010; Kramer, Lorenzon, &
Mueller, 2004; Lanier & Maume, 2009; Peek-Asa et al., 2011).
Rates are also known to vary in subpopulations, including women
seeking abortions (Saftlas et al., 2010).
1 Institute for Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee,
WI, USA2 Department of Health Sciences, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA,
USA3 Department of Family and Community Medicine, Medical College of
Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Corresponding Author:
Kirsten Beyer, Institute for Health and Society, Medical College of Wisconsin,
8701 Watertown Plank Road, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Email: [email protected]
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE201X, Vol XX(X) 1-32ª The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permission:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1524838013515758tva.sagepub.com
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Typically conceptualized as a private form of violence,
most research to date has focused on individual-level corre-
lates, such as age, length of relationship, and prior history of
abuse. Recently, more scholarly attention has been paid to the
role that the residential environment—often described as the
neighborhood environment—may play in influencing IPV.
Studies that attempt to untangle individual and environmental
determinants of IPV are nested within a larger body of work
that examines residential environmental influences on a wider
range of health topics. Research has shown that residential
environmental characteristics are related to a number of health
behaviors and outcomes, including cancer screening, cardio-
vascular disease, and violence, and researchers increasingly
recognize the need to focus beyond individual risk for disease
by considering the physical and environmental contexts as
potential determinants of outcomes (Diez Roux, 2001, 2003,
2009; Kawachi & Berkman, 2003; O’Campo, 2003; Pruitt,
Shim, Mullen, Vernon, & Amick, 2009).
Closely related to the study of IPV is the study of child mal-
treatment (CM)—a field in which neighborhood and commu-
nity environments were explored earlier. In the 1970s,
Garbarino began to posit relationships between community and
CM, suggesting that communities impart risk and protective
factors that may impact the prevalence of child abuse and
neglect (Garbarino & Crouter, 1978). In the late 1990s, Coul-
ton, Korbin, and colleagues began applying multilevel analytic
methods to the study of neighborhood factors associated with
CM. When Coulton, Crampton, Irwin, Spilsbury, and Korbin
(2007) published a literature review of child abuse and neigh-
borhood determinants in 2007, they found 25 studies that
examined the relationship between geographically defined spa-
tial areas and CM. Research examining the relationship
between residential environment and IPV has been slower to
develop than the related CM literature and far less prolific than
the literature on the relationship between neighborhood of resi-
dence and other health outcomes.
In 1998, Heise proposed a social–ecological model relating
both social and residential environmental characteristics to vio-
lence against women (Heise, 1998), which provides a useful
conceptual model in guiding research in this area. In addition,
a small number of studies have identified spatial patterning in
the incidence of IPV and intimate partner homicide (Madkour,
Martin, Halpern, & Schoenbach, 2010; Miles-Doan, 1998;
Miles-Doan & Kelly, 1997), and research has moved toward
disentangling compositional (e.g., demographic) from contex-
tual (e.g., structural, experiential) factors to explain spatial pat-
terns of IPV. Figure 1 is a conceptual model that draws upon
previous work to depict the social–ecological relationships
involved in shaping the likelihood of IPV occurrence (Bronfen-
brenner, 1979; Heise, 1998; Stith, Green, Smith, & Ward,
2004; Dutton, 2009). Our focus in this article is on neighbor-
hood- and community-level influences.
We are not aware of any other reviews of the literature
on the relationship between neighborhoods and IPV. With
research accumulating since the 1990s, increasing promi-
nence of the topic (Linos & Kawachi, 2012), and the potential
Figure 1. Conceptual model relating individual, social, and ecological factors to intimate partner violence.
2 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to identify promising neighborhood-level targets for policy
change and program development, it makes sense to take
stock of what is known, what remains unknown, and methods
and concepts considered. In this article, we undertake a com-
prehensive, systematic review of the literature to date on the
relationship between the residential environment and the IPV,
asking specifically, ‘‘what is the status of scholarship related
to the association between residential environment and IPV
occurrence?’’ Further subquestions include, ‘‘what are the pri-
mary hypotheses tested?’’ ‘‘what research methods are used to
satisfy conditions of ecologic levels?’’ and ‘‘what is the theo-
retical basis for extant research?’’ We conclude with a sum-
mary of the hypothesized pathways by which neighborhood
environment influences IPV occurrence and discuss implica-
tions for research, policy, and practice.
Approach
Search Strategy
We undertook a review of work published in English on the sub-
ject of residential environment and IPV. Figure 2 shows our
search strategy, presented according to preferred reporting items
for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines
(Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). Our inclusion cri-
teria were peer-reviewed papers, published in English, which
explicitly examined the role of neighborhood environment in
influencing IPV by statistically modeling the association
between neighborhood environment and IPV while controlling
for individual-level factors. We limited our search to 1995 to the
present, as an article published in 1995 (O’Campo et al., 1995)
has been identified as the first publication on this subject,
Figure 2. Article search strategy based on preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moheret al., 2009).
Beyer et al. 3
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
examining both individual and contextual factors related to IPV
(Cunradi et al., 2000; Pearlman, Zierler, Gjelsvik, & Verhoek-
Oftedahl, 2003). The publication date of this article thus pro-
vides an intuitive search limit and is preferable to the selection
of an arbitrary date. We conducted our search in both PubMed
and Scopus because of their relative strengths in the biomedical
and social sciences. We confirmed that the combination of these
databases provided significant coverage of our target papers by
verifying that our search identified key papers in the field, with
which we were already familiar. Our search terms, implemented
on February 11, 2012, are (community OR communities OR
‘‘residence characteristics’’ OR residence OR rural* OR ‘‘rural
population’’ OR environment* OR ‘‘social environment’’ OR
context OR neighborhood* OR place OR geogr*) AND
(‘‘domestic violence’’ OR ‘‘battered women’’ OR ‘‘spouse
abuse’’ OR ‘‘partner violence’’ OR ‘‘domestic abuse’’ OR ‘‘part-
ner abuse’’) AND ("statistical regression’’ OR ‘‘statistical anal-
ysis’’ OR ‘‘regression analys*’’ OR ‘‘statistical model*’’ OR
regression* OR correlation OR analysis OR predict OR statistics
OR ‘‘significant association’’ OR ‘‘significantly associated’’ OR
‘‘multilevel model*’’ OR ‘‘analyze data’’ OR ‘‘risk factor*’’)
Limits: English, Publication Date from 1995 to 2012. Our search
retrieved 1,751 records in PubMed and 2,277 in Scopus. We
identified 7 additional articles through other means (personal
collections) that were missed by our search, for a total of
4,035 articles. We removed 1,331 duplicate references, for a
total of 2,704 records to be screened at title review, to narrow the
set of articles for relevance to our research question.
Screening and Review Process
To reduce our list efficiently, we scanned the titles to identify
possible key words to assist in exclusion. All titles with the key
words selected were then individually scanned and removed if
they fell outside the scope of this review. Key words identified
included HIV (250 reviewed and 230 removed using this key
word) children (551 reviewed and 530 removed), elder (42
reviewed and 40 removed), screen (244 reviewed and 238
removed), drug (147 reviewed and 130 removed), intervention
(314 reviewed and 288 removed), tobacco (8 reviewed and
6 removed), belief (46 reviewed and 42 removed), qualitative
(116 reviewed and 113 removed), abortion (19 reviewed and 19
removed), suicide (43 reviewed and 43 removed), childhood
(101 reviewed and 93 removed), depression (75 reviewed and
75 removed), child (177 reviewed and 148 removed), and pro-
gram (115 reviewed and 95 removed). The remaining records
were examined and additional records were removed, for a total
of 120 records remaining after title review.
We then reviewed the abstracts of these articles to examine
their relevance for our question. Two raters (Authors 1 and 2)
reviewed each abstract and indicated whether the article should
be retained or not. With this initial independent rating, one rater
sought to retain 53 articles and the other to retain 49, for an
agreement of 73%. After discussion, this agreement moved to
94%, with one rater seeking to retain 46 articles and the other
to retain 45. A total of 54 articles, encompassing all those
marked to be retained by either rater (rater selections did not
entirely overlap), were examined at full-text review.
After full-text review, 18 were eliminated because they did
not meet our criteria, primarily because they did not control for
individual-level predictors or specified an outcome that did not
directly measure IPV occurrence (victimization or perpetra-
tion). Additional reasons for exclusion are displayed in Figure
2. Our review includes a total of 36 articles published between
1995 and February 11, 2012.
Tabulation of Findings
The following information was abstracted and tabulated for
each article and is presented in Table 1: author(s)/year, loca-
tion/setting, study design/data source(s), population, out-
come(s) of interest, covariates considered, predictor(s) of
interest, analytic approach and results. We also summarized
strengths and weaknesses of each article, with a focus on ana-
lytical approach and theoretical or conceptual motivation,
which we consider to be critical in identifying eventual targets
and approaches for intervention to reduce violence. In the sub-
sequent sections, we examine in more detail and synthesize the
information presented in Table 1.
Results
Historical Development
Efforts to disentangle individual from neighborhood effects on
IPV began in the mid-1990s and have increased in the recent
years. Figure 3 illustrates the increase in interest as observed
in the peer-reviewed literature we include in our review. The
earliest studies on the relationship between neighborhood envi-
ronment and IPV were undertaken in the United States, and the
preponderance of work still originates there. O’Campo et al
(1995), an epidemiologist, led the first study that sought to
measure both individual- and macro-level variables that may
be associated with IPV, investigating the occurrence of IPV
during the childbearing year. While controlling for
individual-level variables such as age and marital status that are
known to influence IPV, they found a significant effect at the
Census Tract level, with both unemployment and per capita
income associated with increased occurrence (O’Campo
et al., 1995). Other researchers have continued this line of
inquiry, expanding the range of variables considered, exploring
additional study areas, deepening the complexity of analysis,
and increasing the range of study findings.
Study Areas
The vast majority of studies on this topic have taken place in
the United States and have drawn largely on social disorganiza-
tion theory. Many of these studies come from the disciplines of
sociology and criminal justice, with the field of epidemiology
providing increasing influence. As shown in Table 1, of the
36 studies reviewed here, 11 (31%) were national U.S. studies
and 11 (31%) were smaller scale U.S. studies, focusing mostly
4 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
Studie
sExplo
ring
the
Stat
istica
lR
elat
ionsh
ipBet
wee
nN
eigh
borh
ood
Envi
ronm
ent
and
Intim
ate
Par
tner
Vio
lence
Ris
k,Li
sted
Chro
nolo
gica
lly.
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
O’C
ampo
etal
.,1995
Bal
tim
ore
City,
USA
(urb
an)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:Pre
gnan
tw
om
en(n¼
160)
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
sco
nduct
edduri
ng
3rd
trim
este
ran
d6
month
spost
par
tum
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
6m
onth
sas
mea
sure
dby
Confli
ctT
actics
Scal
e(C
TS)
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,em
plo
ymen
t,m
arital
stat
us,
educa
tion,par
ity,
race
,co
nfid
ant:
mal
epar
tner
,co
nfid
ant:
soci
alsu
pport
,oth
erin
stru
men
tal
support
,par
tner
dru
guse
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
ratio
ofhom
eow
ner
sto
rente
rs,u
nem
plo
ymen
tra
te,p
erca
pita
inco
me
less
than
$13,5
00
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
wo-lev
ello
gis-
tic
regr
essi
on
model
ing
and
GEE
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elva
riab
les
(unem
plo
ymen
tan
dper
capita
inco
me)
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
incr
ease
dri
skan
dth
enei
ghborh
ood-lev
elva
riab
les
modifi
edth
ere
lationsh
ips
of
the
indiv
idual
-lev
elva
riab
les
toth
eri
skofvi
ole
nce
.T
his
study
found
that
nei
ghborh
ood
unem
plo
ymen
tin
crea
sed
risk
for
IPV
by
more
thre
etim
esusi
ng
the
MLM
appro
ach;an
dnea
rly
5tim
esusi
ng
the
GEE
appro
ach.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
om
par
edtw
om
ethods
ofes
tim
atin
gm
ultile
vel
asso
ciat
ions.
�In
cluded
dis
cuss
ion
ofim
plic
atio
ns
for
public
hea
lth
polic
yan
dpra
ctic
e.Li
mitat
ions:
�Em
phas
isis
on
the
anal
ysis
appro
ach,w
ith
little
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
eore
tica
lbac
kdro
p.
Cunra
diet
al.,
2000
48
contigu
ous
stat
es,U
SA(n
atio
nal
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:B
lack
,W
hite
and
His
pan
icco
uple
s(n¼
1,4
40
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sas
par
tof
1995
Nat
ional
Alc
oholSu
rvey
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)
asm
easu
red
by
am
odifi
edve
rsio
nofth
eC
TS
Cova
riat
es:i
nco
me,
mar
ital
stat
us,
child
ren
under
17,
year
sliv
edw
ith
par
tner
,co
uple
mea
nag
e,co
uple
age
diff
eren
ce,co
uple
mea
ned
uca
tion,co
uple
educa
tion
diff
eren
ce;fo
rboth
mal
ean
dfe
mal
epar
tner
s—unem
plo
ymen
t,ch
ildhood
viole
nce
,ap
pro
valofm
arital
aggr
essi
on,al
coholre
late
dpro
ble
ms,
alco
holvo
lum
e,im
puls
ivity
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty
def
ined
as1990
Cen
sus
Tra
cts
with
>20%
livin
gunder
Feder
alpove
rty
line;
under
educa
tion
(%of
popula
tion
without
hig
hsc
hooled
uca
tion);
unem
plo
ymen
t(%
ofper
sons
>16
year
sin
the
labor
forc
ebut
curr
ently
unem
plo
yed);
work
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion
(%ofem
plo
yed
popula
tion
indef
ined
‘‘work
ing
clas
s’’occ
upat
ions,
such
ascl
eric
al,sa
les,
mac
hin
eoper
ators
,et
c.).
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
with
anal
yses
stra
tifie
dby
race
(White,
Bla
ck,H
ispan
ic).
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Under
educa
tion,w
ork
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion,an
dpove
rty
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
IPV
for
all
race
s,but
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edonly
for
bla
ckco
uple
s(O
R¼
2.8
7)
for
mal
e-to
-fem
ale
par
tner
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
mea
sure
sofin
div
idual
char
acte
rist
ics
and
outc
om
eva
riab
le.
�M
easu
res
ofnei
ghborh
ood
vari
able
sw
ell-def
ined
,al
though
som
edom
ains
may
be
open
toques
tion
(e.g
.,def
initio
nofw
ork
ing
clas
s)�
The
auth
ors
pro
vide
polic
yim
plic
atio
ns,
noting
that
stat
e/Fe
der
al/loca
lgo
vern
men
tssh
ould
aim
toal
levi
ate
inner
-city
pove
rty,
bec
ause
ofits
rela
-tionsh
ipto
IPV
.Li
mitat
ions:
�N
eigh
borh
ood
isdef
ined
asth
eC
ensu
sT
ract
,but
ther
eis
no
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
em
eanin
gof
nei
ghborh
ood
or
com
munity,
eith
erfr
om
ath
eore
tica
lor
pra
ctic
alst
andpoin
t.C
ensu
sT
ract
sdo
not
nec
essa
rily
def
ine
real
nei
ghborh
ood
boundar
ies.
�T
her
eis
no
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
eory
eith
erin
sele
ctio
nofva
riab
les
or
mea
sure
sor
inre
sults.
Mea
rset
al.,
2001
Larg
eurb
anco
unty
inT
exas
(USA
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:IP
Vca
ses
resu
ltin
gin
polic
ean
d/o
rco
urt
reco
rds.
Dat
aso
urc
e:ca
ses
sam
ple
dfr
om
court
and
polic
ere
cord
sfo
rJa
nuar
y,A
ugu
stan
dO
ctober
for
1990,1991
and
1992
(n¼
336).
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
(der
ived
from
CT
S)pre
vale
nce
and
tim
eto
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,num
ber
ofpri
or
vict
imiz
atio
ns,
num
ber
oftim
espri
or
dru
guse
,ra
ce/e
thnic
ity
Com
munity-
leve
lco
vari
ates
:1990
Cen
sus
Blo
ckm
edia
nfa
mily
inco
me
coded
into
thre
eca
tego
ries
Pre
dic
tor
ofin
tere
st:C
ensu
sB
lock
med
ian
fam
ilyin
com
e
Anal
ytic
met
hod:C
ox
regr
essi
on
surv
ival
anal
ysis
toex
amin
eef
ficac
yofpro
tect
ive
ord
ers
(PO
s),ar
rest
s,an
dco
mbin
edPO
and
arre
st.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asU
SC
ensu
sB
lock
.
Low
Cen
sus
Blo
ckm
edia
nfa
mily
inco
me
was
mar
ginal
lysi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
anin
crea
sed
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
rate
(RR¼
1.7
52).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�So
lidth
eore
tica
lbas
isab
out
how
and
why
indiv
idual
and
conte
xtu
alfa
ctors
mig
ht
influ
ence
the
effic
acy
ofpolic
ein
terv
entions
(e.g
.,PO
).Li
mitat
ions:
�R
esults
may
be
limited
inab
ility
toge
ner
aliz
ebec
ause
not
allIP
Vin
ciden
tsor
re-v
ictim
izat
ions
are
report
edto
the
polic
e.B
row
nin
g2002
Chic
ago,U
SAD
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enin
volv
edin
het
erose
xual
rela
tionsh
ips
Dat
aso
urc
e:su
rvey
edas
par
tof
the
1995–1997
Chic
ago
Hea
lth
and
Soci
alLi
feSu
rvey
(n¼
199).
Outc
om
e:nonle
thal
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:ra
ce,ag
e,in
com
e,se
xual
abuse
duri
ng
child
hood,ed
uca
tion,m
arital
stat
us,
jeal
ousy
asso
urc
eofco
nfli
ct,num
ber
ofco
nfli
ctso
urc
es,
rela
tionsh
ipdura
tion,ye
ars
resi
din
gin
the
nei
ghborh
ood,fr
eetim
ew
ith
mutu
alfr
iends/
fam
ilyPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,re
siden
tial
stab
ility
,im
mig
rant
conce
ntr
atio
n,co
llect
ive
effic
acy,
norm
of
nonin
terv
ention,vi
ole
nt
vict
imiz
atio
n
Anal
ytic
met
hods:
Tw
o-
and
thre
e-le
velhie
rarc
hic
allo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
sD
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
Chic
ago
nei
ghborh
ood
boundar
ies,
whic
har
ebas
edon
1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
cts.
While
contr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
-le
velch
arac
teri
stic
s,co
llect
ive
effic
acy
issi
gnifi
cantly
neg
a-tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
par
tner
viole
nce
and
stro
nge
rnonin
-te
rven
tion
norm
sar
esi
gnifi
-ca
ntly
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
viole
nce
;C
once
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,re
siden
tial
stab
i-lit
yan
dim
mig
rant
conce
ntr
a-tion
wer
enot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
par
tner
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�V
ery
stro
ng
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsth
atgi
veco
nte
xt
toth
ehyp
oth
eses
and
the
sele
ctio
nan
dco
nst
ruct
ion
ofva
riab
les.
�St
rong
des
crip
tion
of‘‘n
eigh
borh
ood’’
bas
edon
surv
eyre
sponden
ts’del
inea
tion
ofnei
ghborh
ood
�T
he
conce
pt
of‘‘c
olle
ctiv
eef
ficac
y’’has
bee
nw
ell-
dev
eloped
by
this
rese
arch
group
and
inco
rpo-
rate
din
tooth
erst
udie
sofvi
ole
nce
,ab
use
,an
dhea
lth.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Sa
mple
size
consi
der
atio
ns
limited
stat
istica
lpow
er.
(con
tinue
d)
5
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Van
Wyk
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
s(n¼
6,6
10
couple
s).
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:ra
ce,su
bje
ctiv
efin
anci
alsa
tisf
action,
dura
tion
ofunio
n,m
arital
stat
us,
conta
cts
with
oth
ers,
SES
for
couple
sPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
Met
hods:
Logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
geis
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
when
indiv
idual
race
isnot
pre
sent
inth
em
odel
(indiv
idual
race
and
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
org
aniz
atio
nw
ere
colli
nea
r).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
groundin
gin
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
nth
eory
and
soci
olo
gica
lw
ork
�In
cludes
anex
amin
atio
nofin
div
idual
-lev
elso
cial
support
inco
nce
rtw
ith
stru
ctura
ldis
adva
nta
ge(a
soppose
dto
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
n)
�St
rong
conce
ptu
aliz
atio
nofco
mm
unity/
nei
ghborh
ood
and
nei
ghborh
ood
fact
ors
�Use
dfa
ctor
anal
ysis
bas
edon
14
Cen
sus
vari
able
sto
crea
tean
index
tom
easu
rest
ruct
ura
ldis
adva
nta
ge.
Lim
itat
ions:
�D
oes
not
emplo
ym
ultile
velm
odel
ing
stru
cture
,th
us
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfal
lacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
Ben
son
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
wav
es1
and
2ofth
eN
SFH
(n¼
5,0
31
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:m
ale
dri
nki
ng/
dru
gs,fe
mal
eso
cial
support
,ra
ce,em
plo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
,in
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,ch
ange
inin
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
,ag
e,m
an’s
educa
tion,
pri
or
report
ofvi
ole
nce
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,nei
ghborh
ood
resi
den
tial
inst
abili
ty
Logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
for
viole
nce
and
oth
erin
div
idual
char
acte
rist
ics
inw
ave
1dat
ain
dic
ates
that
nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
ge,
nei
ghborh
ood
resi
den
tial
inst
abili
ty,m
ale
emplo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
,an
dsu
bje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
influ
ence
likel
ihood
ofvi
ole
nce
atw
ave
2.In
the
final
model
,nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
gew
asas
soci
ated
with
IPV
(OR¼
1.3
6;ns)
.R
esid
ential
inst
abili
tysi
gnifi
cantly
reduce
dth
eodds
ofIP
V(O
R¼
0.1
3).
Oth
ersi
gnifi
cant
vari
able
sw
ere
viole
nce
atw
ave
1(O
R:2.4
8),
emplo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
(OR
:1.4
0),
and
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
(OR
:1.3
3)
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsfr
om
the
soci
olo
gica
llit
erat
ure
with
effo
rtto
under
stan
dw
het
her
asso
ciat
ions
obse
rved
atth
eag
greg
ate
leve
l(e.
g.,r
ates
ofIP
Var
ehig
her
indis
adva
nta
ged
nei
ghborh
oods)
exis
tbec
ause
ofco
nte
xtu
alef
fect
sor
bec
ause
ofre
port
ing
bia
s.�
Cre
ated
indic
esofc
once
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
gebas
edon
5C
ensu
sva
riab
les
model
edon
pre
vious
work
.Li
mitat
ions:
�D
idnot
emplo
ym
ultile
velm
odel
ing
stru
cture
,th
us
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfa
llacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
DeM
aris
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
surv
eyw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
sw
her
eth
em
ale
par
tner
was
seek
ing
emplo
ymen
tor
emplo
yed
(n¼
4,0
95
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
es:th
ree
cate
gory
‘‘vio
lence
pro
file’
’va
riab
le:
no
viole
nce
,phys
ical
aggr
essi
on,in
tense
mal
evi
ole
nce
;der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:re
lationsh
ipdura
tion,m
arital
/cohab
itin
gst
atus,
wom
an’s
age
atunio
n,fir
stunio
n,m
an’s
isola
tion,h
azar
dofex
clusi
on,n
um
ber
ofch
ildre
n,
subst
ance
abuse
,dis
agre
emen
tfr
equen
cy,
dis
agre
emen
tst
yle,
man
and
wom
anem
plo
ymen
t,ed
uca
tion,an
dge
nder
ideo
logi
esPre
dic
tors
ofIn
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultin
om
ial
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
bas
edon
1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
cts
Nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
gew
assi
gnifi
cantly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
inte
nse
viole
nce
(OR¼
1.0
5)
asco
mpar
edto
no
viole
nce
;dis
adva
nta
gew
asnot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
aggr
essi
on,w
hen
com
par
edto
no
viole
nce
.Si
gnifi
cant
asso
ciat
ions
bet
wee
nin
div
idual
fact
ors
and
phys
ical
aggr
essi
on
incl
uded
both
par
tner
sbei
ng
inth
eir
first
unio
n(O
R:1.3
5),
num
ber
of
child
ren
(pro
tect
ive)
(OR
:0.8
7),
and
subst
ance
abuse
(OR
:1.5
7).
Indiv
idual
risk
fact
ors
for
inte
nse
mal
evi
ole
nce
(ver
sus
no
viole
nce
)in
cluded
the
fem
ale
par
tner
hav
ing
anon-t
raditio
nal
ideo
l-ogy
(OR
:1.6
1)
and
subst
ance
abuse
(OR
:1.6
6).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�A
sw
ith
the
oth
erst
udie
sfr
om
this
group
(lis
tfr
om
above
cita
tions)
,th
eore
tica
lbac
kgro
und
and
inte
grat
ion
isst
rong
and
support
sth
edev
elopm
ent
ofre
sear
chques
tions
that
inquir
eab
outa
vari
ety
off
orc
esoper
atin
gat
seve
rall
evel
sofs
oci
allif
ean
dth
eir
asso
ciat
ion
and/o
rim
pac
ton
viole
nce
.�
Inte
grat
essu
chin
div
idual
fact
ors
asre
lationsh
ipst
ress
ors
(e.g
.,as
pec
tsofth
ere
lationsh
ipth
atpro
mote
ongo
ing
tensi
on),
confli
ctm
anag
emen
t,an
d‘‘c
onditio
nin
gfa
ctors
(e.g
.,is
ola
tion
from
soci
alnet
work
s)as
pro
xim
alin
fluen
ces.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Although
the
indiv
idual
and
conte
xtu
alfa
ctors
note
dab
ove
carr
yth
eore
tica
lgr
avitas
,it
isuncl
ear
that
the
stat
istica
lpow
er,dat
aso
urc
e,or
anal
ytic
met
hodolo
gyis
capab
leoftr
uly
dis
tingu
ishin
gth
ese
fact
ors
.Rel
atio
nsh
ipst
ress
ors
,for
exam
ple
,ar
ean
alyz
edin
div
idual
ly,n
ot
thro
ugh
crea
tion
ofa
stre
ssor
index
or
scal
e.A
sin
pri
or
studie
s,th
eydes
crib
elim
itat
ions
rela
ted
toco
llinea
rity
.�
As
inpri
or
studie
s,th
eydid
not
emplo
ym
ultile
vel
model
ing
stru
cture
,thus
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfa
llacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
(con
tinue
d)
6
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
McQ
ues
tion,2003
Colo
mbia
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:
Wom
enofre
pro
duct
ive
age
(n¼
6,1
31)
Dat
aso
urc
e:C
olo
mbia
’s1995
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey.
Outc
om
es:ev
er(1
)hit
or
(2)
forc
edto
hav
ese
xby
curr
ent
husb
and/p
artn
erC
ova
riat
es:m
arital
stat
us,
age,
num
ber
ofliv
ebir
ths,
resp
onden
t’s
and
par
tner
’sed
uca
tion
and
occ
upat
ional
pre
stig
e,dura
ble
vs.d
irt
floor,
urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce,re
gion
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:cl
ust
er-lev
elre
port
sof
coer
ced
sex
and
bea
ting
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
wo-lev
elra
n-
dom
inte
rcep
tlo
gist
icre
gres
-si
on
model
ing
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits
from
surv
ey
Soci
alef
fect
sm
easu
res
are
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
for
both
coer
ced
sex
(OR
¼1.3
49)
and
bea
ting
(OR¼
1.6
43),
indic
atin
gth
atso
cial
norm
sm
ayin
fluen
ceri
skfo
rIP
V
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
sso
cial
effe
cts
explic
itly
and
ara
nge
of
cova
riat
es.
�T
he
only
study
conduct
edin
Colu
mbia
.�
DH
Sm
easu
res
ofso
cioec
onom
icposi
tion
inco
rpora
ted.
Lim
itat
ions:
�M
easu
rem
ents
ofso
cial
norm
sar
eag
greg
ates
of
indiv
idual
resp
onse
suse
dto
asse
ssoutc
om
esan
ddo
not
consi
der
the
exis
tence
or
nat
ure
of
com
ple
xso
cial
net
work
s.K
oen
iget
al.,
2003
Ban
glad
esh,tw
ore
gions
(rura
l)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
10,3
68)
Dat
aso
urc
e:1993
Know
ledge
,A
ttitude
and
Pra
ctic
esu
rvey
ofth
eFa
mily
Hea
lth
Res
earc
hPro
ject
Outc
om
e:Phys
ical
bea
ting
ofw
om
anby
husb
and
or
husb
and’s
fam
ilyC
ova
riat
es:N
um
ber
ofl
ivin
gso
ns,
wife
’sag
e,re
ligio
n,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
ife’s
educa
tion,
landhold
ings
,fa
mily
stru
cture
,cr
edit
group
mem
ber
ship
,w
om
en’s
auto
nom
yin
dex
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity-
leve
lw
om
en’s
educa
tion,cr
edit
group
mem
ber
ship
,w
om
en’s
auto
nom
yin
dex
Anal
ytic
met
hods:
Tw
o-lev
ello
git
model
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
eci
vil
adm
inis
trat
ive
unit
calle
da
mou
za,w
hic
hw
asuse
das
the
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunit.
Nei
ghborh
ood
mea
sure
sar
eag
greg
ates
ofsu
rvey
resp
onse
s.
Asm
alle
rpro
port
ion
ofw
om
enin
the
com
munity
who
bel
ong
tosa
vings
and
cred
itgr
oups
and
alo
wer
index
ofw
om
en’s
auto
nom
yar
esi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
ofv
iole
nce
(by
husb
and
or
husb
and’s
fam
ily)
inone
ofth
est
udy
regi
ons
(Jes
sore
)but
not
the
oth
er(S
iraj
gonij)
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
he
first
study
conduct
edin
Ban
glad
esh.
�G
uid
edby
aco
nce
ptu
alfr
amew
ork
usi
ng
the
conce
pt
ofw
om
en’s
auto
nom
y/em
pow
erm
ent
asa
dom
ain
�St
rong
anal
ysis
appro
ach.
Lim
itat
ions:
�T
he
tim
eper
iod
within
whic
hm
easu
red
IPV
took
pla
cew
asnotcl
earl
ysp
ecifi
edin
the
mea
sure
men
tin
stru
men
tan
dac
tions
const
ituting
phys
ical
viole
nce
wer
enot
explic
itly
stat
ed.
Dek
eser
edy,
Schw
artz
,A
lvi,
&T
om
asze
wsk
i.,2003
Eas
tern
Onta
rio,C
A(u
rban
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
enan
dw
om
enin
public
housi
ng
esta
tes
(n¼
325)
Dat
aso
urc
e:Q
ual
ity
of
Nei
ghborh
ood
Life
Surv
ey
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
(mea
sure
dusi
ng
modifi
edve
rsio
nofC
TS-
2)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge(o
ther
sw
ere
test
edbut
did
not
ente
rm
odel
s)Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elper
ceiv
edco
llect
ive
effic
acy,
dis
ord
er,cr
ime
leve
l,dru
gpro
ble
ms
Anal
ytic
Met
hod:Lo
gist
ic,
forw
ard
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
report
sofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Aft
erco
ntr
olli
ng
for
age,
hig
her
colle
ctiv
eef
ficac
yis
sign
ifica
ntly,
neg
ativ
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsw
ith
explic
atio
nof
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
nan
dco
llect
ive
effic
acy
asec
olo
gica
lva
riab
les.
�U
ses
am
odel
tolin
kco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics
tovi
ctim
izat
ion,ei
ther
by
way
ofec
olo
gica
lpro
cess
es,or
dir
ect
impac
tofth
enei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Lim
itat
ions:
�G
ener
aliz
abili
tyis
limited
by
the
study
popula
tion.
Ben
son
etal
.,2004
USA
Des
ign:C
ross
sect
ional
study
Popula
tion:
White
and
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anm
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gco
uple
sin
wav
es1
and
2ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
s(n¼
5,6
47)
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
,usi
ng
item
sbas
edon
the
CT
S.C
ova
riat
es:In
div
idual
race
,ec
onom
icdis
tres
s(index
bas
edon
house
hold
size
toin
com
era
tio,
satisf
action
with
finan
ces,
and
emplo
ymen
tst
abili
ty),
mal
eed
uca
tional
atta
inm
ent,
mal
eal
coholu
se,a
nd
age,
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
,job
inst
abili
ty,ed
uca
tion,in
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,
dri
nki
ng
pro
ble
ms
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
Met
hod:S
tepw
ise
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Conce
ntr
ated
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
geis
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
ofI
PV
(OR
¼1.3
1),
and
reduce
sO
Rfo
rra
ceal
one
asa
risk
fact
or,
while
contr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
char
acte
rist
ics.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
heo
retica
lre
cogn
itio
nth
atth
eas
soci
atio
ns
obse
rved
bet
wee
nra
cean
dhea
lth
outc
om
es,
incl
udin
gvi
ole
nce
,m
aybe
confo
unded
by
com
munity
conte
xt.
�M
ore
ove
r,th
eau
thors
asse
rtth
atw
hile
man
yst
udie
snote
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nra
cean
dIP
V,
they
do
not
offer
inte
rpre
tation.
Lim
itat
ions:
�T
he
step
wis
ere
gres
sion
atte
mpts
toac
count
for
indiv
idual
and
com
munity
vari
able
sin
asi
ngl
em
odel
rath
erth
ana
multi-le
velm
odel
.La
uri
tsen
and
Schau
m,
2004
USA
(nat
ional
)
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study.
Popula
tion:W
om
en>
18
(n*
90,0
00)
Dat
aso
urc
e:par
tici
pan
tsin
the
1995
Are
a-Id
entifie
dN
atio
nal
Cri
me
Vic
tim
izat
ion
Surv
ey
Outc
om
e:A
ttem
pte
dor
com
ple
ted
assa
ult,ro
bber
y,ra
pe
or
sexual
assa
ult
inpri
or
6m
onth
sper
pet
rate
dby
acu
rren
tor
form
erin
tim
ate
par
tner
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,ra
ce,et
hnic
ity,
fam
ilyst
ruct
ure
(incl
udin
gm
arital
stat
us
and
pre
sence
ofc
hild
ren),
house
hold
inco
me,
even
ings
athom
e,le
ngt
hof
resi
den
cePre
dic
tors
ofIn
tere
st:N
eigh
borh
ood
per
cent
pove
rty,
fem
ale-
hea
ded
house
hold
sw
ith
child
ren,
bla
ck,an
dch
ildre
n<
18,an
dw
het
her
ince
ntr
alci
ty
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asU
SC
ensu
sT
ract
Livi
ng
ina
nei
ghborh
ood
with
anei
ghborh
ood
pro
port
ion
of
fem
ale-
hea
ded
house
hold
san
dch
ildre
n<
18
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.N
eigh
borh
ood
pove
rty
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
neg
ativ
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�A
ccounts
for
indiv
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics.
�In
form
edby
fem
inis
tth
eory
and
pro
vides
stro
ng
theo
retica
lbac
kgro
und
for
atte
mpting
tounder
stan
dth
ein
fluen
ceofco
nte
xt
on
IPV
.�
Info
rmed
by
fem
inis
tth
eory
asa
model
for
under
stan
din
gth
ein
fluen
ceofco
nte
xt
on
IPV
.Li
mitat
ions:
�A
nal
ysis
limited
toa
smal
lnum
ber
ofhig
hly
corr
elat
edco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics
�T
heo
retica
lguid
ance
for
sele
ctio
nofch
arac
teri
stic
sis
limited
.
(con
tinue
d)
7
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Nav
edan
dPer
sson
(2005)
Ban
glad
esh
(one
urb
anan
done
rura
lre
gion)
Des
ign:C
ross
sect
ional
study
Popula
tion:Eve
r-m
arri
edw
om
enofre
pro
duct
ive
age
(n¼
2,7
02).
Dat
aso
urc
e:Popula
tion-b
ased
surv
eyas
soci
ated
with
the
WH
Om
ulti-co
untr
yst
udy
on
dom
estic
viole
nce
.
Outc
om
e:Phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
12
month
san
dove
rlif
etim
e,bas
edon
CT
S,in
cludin
gfr
equen
cyC
ova
riat
es:I
ndiv
idual
-lev
el:A
ge,h
usb
and’s
educa
tion,
whet
her
wom
anea
rns
anin
com
e,sa
vings
/cre
dit
group
mem
ber
ship
,m
arri
age
invo
lvin
ga
dow
ry,
in-law
sliv
ein
house
hold
,rel
iance
on
nat
alfa
mily
’ssu
pport
ina
cris
is,sp
ousa
lco
mm
unic
atio
n,
wom
an’s
moth
erab
use
dby
her
fath
er,husb
and’s
moth
erab
use
dby
his
fath
er,in
com
e,M
usl
imPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:Pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
the
loca
lity,
com
munity-
leve
lat
titu
des
tow
ard
gender
role
s
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
regr
essi
on
model
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
em
ohol
laor
villa
ge.N
eigh
borh
ood
vari
able
sar
edef
ined
by
aggr
egat
ing
indiv
idual
resp
onse
s,not
incl
udin
gth
ere
sponden
t.
Ahig
her
pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
thei
rco
mm
unity
isas
soci
ated
with
anin
crea
sed
likel
ihood
of
phys
ical
intim
ate
par
tner
viole
nce
(OR¼
5.6
0in
the
urb
anre
gion
and
OR¼
6.0
7in
the
rura
lre
gion),
alth
ough
the
rela
tionsh
ipw
asnot
stat
istica
llysi
gnifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
once
ptu
alfr
amew
ork
for
det
erm
inan
tsofsp
ouse
abuse
that
incl
udes
indiv
idual
s,husb
and-w
ifedya
d,
fam
ily,im
med
iate
soci
alco
nte
xt
(e.g
.,su
pport
serv
ices
),an
dla
rger
soci
alco
nte
xt
(e.g
.,ge
nder
ineq
ual
ity)
,fo
llow
ing
Hei
se’s
(1998)
model
.�
Unlik
eoth
erst
udie
sofdom
estic
viole
nce
inth
isre
gion,th
eau
thors
use
dques
tionnai
reitem
sth
atsp
ecify
what
ism
eant
by
phys
ical
viole
nce
(bas
edon
CT
S).
�A
ccounte
dfo
rin
terg
ener
atio
nal
tran
smis
sion
of
viole
nce
,cr
ime
leve
lsin
the
com
munity,
and
loca
lat
titu
des
tow
ard
gender
role
s.�
Consi
der
ednum
erous
cova
riat
es.
�In
cluded
aqual
itat
ive
com
ponen
t(in
dep
thin
terv
iew
sw
ith
abuse
dw
om
en)
that
pro
vides
insi
ght
into
study
findin
gs.
Lim
itat
ions:
�C
om
munity-
leve
lva
riab
les
wer
eco
nst
ruct
edfr
om
indiv
idual
surv
eyre
sponse
s,ag
greg
ated
by
villa
ge(m
ohal
la),
rath
erth
anfr
om
apopula
tion
censu
sso
urc
e.�
Although
use
ofm
ultile
velm
odel
ing
isa
stre
ngt
h,
this
stre
ngt
his
limited
by
the
fact
that
the
com
munity
vari
able
sar
eag
greg
ated
from
indiv
idual
resp
onse
s.Fl
ake,
2005
Per
u(n
atio
nal
)St
udy
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enag
ed15–49
curr
ently
livin
gw
ith
apar
tner
(n¼
15,9
91).
Dat
aso
urc
e:2000
Per
uD
emogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey.
Outc
om
e:Li
fetim
ephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nC
ova
riat
es:Educa
tion,ag
eat
first
unio
n,ch
ildhood
exposu
reto
fam
ilyvi
ole
nce
,H
ouse
hold
-lev
el:
Mar
ital
stat
us,
fam
ilysi
ze,so
cioec
onom
icst
atus,
par
tner
alco
holc
onsu
mption,f
emal
eem
plo
ymen
t,ed
uca
tional
diff
eren
tial
,dec
isio
n-m
akin
gpow
erPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:re
gion
ofre
siden
ce,urb
an/
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
Def
initio
ns:
Reg
ions
des
crib
edge
ogr
aphic
ally
asco
asta
l(low
erpove
rty,
hig
her
educa
tion,bet
ter
acce
ssto
serv
ices
),hig
hla
nds
(rura
l,in
dig
enous
popula
tion,hig
hra
tes
ofill
iter
acy,
pove
rty,
and
unem
plo
ymen
t),an
dea
ster
nlo
wla
nds
(lea
stpopula
ted,
low
erdev
elopm
ent,
and
less
acce
ssto
educa
tion
and
oth
erre
sourc
es).
Wom
enliv
ing
inth
ehig
hla
nds
(OR¼
1.2
18)
and
the
east
ern
low
lands
(OR¼
1.3
74)
exper
ience
dm
ore
IPV
than
coas
talw
om
en;w
om
enin
smal
lci
ties
(OR¼
1.2
18)
and
the
countr
ysid
e(O
R¼
1.3
74)
exper
ience
dm
ore
IPV
than
wom
enin
larg
eci
ties
.T
he
hig
hla
nds
regi
on
ism
ore
rura
lan
dla
rgel
ypopula
ted
by
indig
enous
groups,
and
the
east
ern
low
lands
regi
on
isch
arac
teri
zed
by
den
setr
opic
alra
info
rest
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�So
lidth
eore
tica
lunder
pin
nin
gsth
atem
plo
yB
ronfe
nbre
nner
’s(1
979)
and
Hei
se’s
(1998)
ecolo
gica
lper
spec
tive
tounder
stan
din
terp
lay
of
fact
ors
atin
div
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
leve
ls.
�R
ecogn
izes
vari
able
sofin
tere
stas
‘‘ris
km
arke
rs’’
rath
erth
an‘‘r
isk
fact
ors
,’’th
us
reco
gniz
ing
that
the
vari
able
sas
soci
ated
with
viole
nce
may
not
be
causa
l�
Consi
der
sva
riab
les
mea
sure
dat
the
indiv
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
leve
l.�
Uniq
ue
inst
udyi
ng
South
Am
eric
anpopula
tion
and
incl
udin
gru
ralar
eas
and
indig
enous
groups
inth
esa
mple
.
Koen
iget
al.,
2006
4dis
tric
tsin
Utt
arPra
des
h,N
ort
hIn
dia
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edm
en15–59
(n¼
4,5
20)
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sfr
om
the
Mal
eR
epro
duct
ive
Hea
lth
Surv
ey,w
hic
his
aco
mponen
tofth
ePER
FOR
Mst
udy,
ast
ratifie
d,m
ultis
tage
clust
ersa
mple
surv
eyco
nduct
edin
28
dis
tric
tsofU
ttar
Pra
des
h
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
viole
nce
per
pet
ration
agai
nst
wife
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
ife’s
educa
tion,
house
hold
asse
tin
dex
,eco
nom
icpre
ssure
,are
aof
resi
den
ce(r
ura
l/urb
an),
mar
ital
dura
tion,c
hild
less
,husb
and
his
tory
ofex
tram
arital
rela
tionsh
ip,
inte
rgen
erat
ional
exposu
reto
viole
nce
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
econom
icin
dex
,co
mm
unity
elec
tric
ity,
com
munity
fem
ale
educa
tion,co
mm
unity
gender
norm
s,co
mm
unity
wife
bea
ting
norm
s,dis
tric
tm
urd
erra
te
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
assu
rvey
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits;
incl
udes
dis
tric
ts.
Com
munity
‘‘wife
bea
ting’’norm
sat
both
the
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunit
and
dis
tric
tle
velw
ere
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
viole
nce
.D
istr
ict
murd
erra
tew
assi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edfo
rboth
phys
ical
and
sexual
viole
nce
.A
nec
onom
icin
dex
,co
mm
unity
elec
tric
ity,
fem
ale
educa
tion
and
gender
norm
sw
ere
all
non-s
ignifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
atio
nofan
ddev
elopm
ent
ofa
com
munity
econom
icin
dex
.�
Consi
der
atio
nofad
ditio
nal
com
munity
attitu
de
fact
ors
,su
chas
wife
-bea
ting
norm
s.�
Guid
edby
theo
ryab
out
conte
xt
and
com
munity
fact
ors
that
may
affe
ctri
skofdom
estic
viole
nce
.Li
mitat
ions:
�R
eport
sofvi
ole
nce
gath
ered
from
men
,w
ho
may
not
accu
rate
lyre
port
aneg
ativ
ebeh
avio
rlik
eab
use
(the
auth
ors
note
this
pote
ntial
limitat
ion).
(con
tinue
d)
8
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Rag
hav
anet
al.,
2006
Six
US
stat
es(N
Y,
OK
,T
N,M
O,C
A,
NC
)
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
en>
18
rece
ivin
gor
elig
ible
for
Tem
-pora
ryA
ssis
tance
toN
eedy
Fam
ilies
(TA
NF)
and
had
adru
gpro
ble
m(n¼
50).
Dat
aso
urc
e:a
study
exam
inin
gso
cial
net
work
com
posi
tion
ina
wel
fare
tow
ork
pro
gram
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
last
6m
onth
s,bas
edon
item
sfr
om
the
Rev
ised
Confli
ctT
actics
Scal
eC
ova
riat
es:su
bst
ance
use
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
soci
aldis
ord
er,
net
work
IPV
,co
mm
unity
viole
nce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
IPV
within
aw
om
an’s
soci
alnet
work
and
com
munity
viole
nce
wer
esi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
risk
;so
cial
dis
ord
ernot
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�B
ased
on
soci
aldis
ord
erth
eory
,in
cludin
gco
mm
unity
viole
nce
and
colle
ctiv
eef
ficac
y/so
cial
dis
org
aniz
atio
n.
�Fo
llow
sSa
mpso
net
al.in
conce
rnab
out
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nco
mm
unity
dis
ord
eran
dvi
ole
nce
.�
Stro
ng
expla
nat
ion
ofth
eory
bas
edon
curr
ent
rese
arch
.�
Consi
der
sth
ein
fluen
ceofvi
ole
nce
ina
wom
an’s
soci
alnet
work
on
her
ow
nri
skofvi
ole
nce
.In
cludes
subst
ance
abuse
asa
cova
riat
e.�
Four
dis
tinct
hyp
oth
eses
test
ed.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Li
mited
consi
der
atio
nofco
vari
ates
.C
unra
di,
2007
USA
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gH
ispan
ic,B
lack
and
White
indiv
idual
sag
ed18
and
old
er(n¼
21,0
29).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e2000
Nat
ional
House
hold
Surv
eyon
Dru
gA
buse
Outc
om
e:m
utu
alphys
ical
IPV
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:dri
nki
ng
leve
l,ra
ce/e
thnic
ity,
educa
tion,
age
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:per
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er,i
nte
ract
ion
among
dri
nki
ng
beh
avio
ran
dper
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing,
acco
unting
for
multis
tage
,m
ulti-cl
ust
ersa
mplin
gst
rate
gy.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erw
asin
dep
enden
tly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
mutu
alIP
Vfo
rm
en(O
R¼
1.6
1);
for
wom
en,
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erm
oder
ated
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
ndri
nki
ng
leve
lan
dm
utu
alIP
V,in
crea
sing
risk
under
conditio
ns
ofhig
hnei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�M
ove
sth
elit
erat
ure
forw
ard
on
the
rela
tionsh
ips
obse
rved
inpri
or
studie
sbet
wee
nal
coholu
sean
dIP
V.
�T
hes
eau
thors
sough
tto
unta
ngl
eth
ere
lationsh
ips
that
mig
ht
exis
tam
ong
each
par
tner
’sdri
nki
ng
pat
tern
s,so
cial
dis
org
aniz
atio
n,an
ddem
ogr
aphic
vari
able
s.Li
mitat
ions:
�M
easu
rem
ent
ofI
PV
isnot
spec
ific,
excl
udes
cert
ain
types
ofvi
ole
nce
,an
dis
bas
edon
report
sfr
om
one
par
tner
inea
chco
uple
.A
klim
unnes
sa,K
han
,K
abir
,an
dM
ori
,2007
Ban
glad
esh
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:Eve
r-m
arri
edm
en,
aged
14–54,(n¼
2823
wei
ghte
dan
d3165
un-w
eigh
ted)
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
sfr
om
the
2004
Ban
glad
esh
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
,se
xual
and
ove
rall
IPV
per
pet
ration
agai
nst
wife
inth
ela
stye
arC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,ed
uca
tion,num
ber
ofch
ildre
n,
relig
ion
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
anal
ysis
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
isco
nce
ived
asin
div
idual
resi
den
cebei
ng
urb
anve
rsus
rura
l.
Hig
hra
tes
ofphys
ical
(68%
),se
xual
(27%
),an
dove
rall
abuse
(72%
)re
port
ed.U
rban
resi
den
cew
asas
soci
ated
with
adec
reas
edlik
elih
ood
of
sexual
viole
nce
per
pet
ration
(OR¼
0.8
0,95%
CI:[
0.6
5,
0.9
9])
.Pla
ceofre
siden
cew
asnot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
viole
nce
or
ove
rall
dom
estic
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�La
rge
sam
ple
size
;�
Sett
ing
inB
angl
ades
h,w
her
eth
ere
hav
ebee
nfe
wst
udie
s.Li
mitat
ions:
�Im
plic
atio
ns
off
indin
gsfo
rth
ere
lationsh
ipbet
wee
npla
cean
dIP
Vis
not
dis
cuss
ed.
�Li
ttle
theo
retica
lgr
oundin
gfo
rth
eex
plo
ration
of
pla
ceis
incl
uded
.�
Pote
ntial
bia
sin
inte
rvie
win
gm
en,par
ticu
larl
yin
clusi
on
ofth
ose
no
longe
rm
arri
ed.H
ow
ever
,th
ehig
hra
tes
ofab
use
report
edm
ayin
dic
ate
less
bia
s.A
cker
son
etal
.,2008
India
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edIn
dia
nw
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
83,6
27).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e1998–1999
India
nN
atio
nal
Fam
ilyH
ealth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
or
inlif
etim
e(s
ince
age
15)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,a
geat
mar
riag
e,re
ligio
n,s
oci
alca
ste,
stan
dar
dofliv
ing,
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
loca
tion
of
nei
ghborh
ood
(urb
an/r
ura
l),w
om
an’s
educa
tion,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,ed
uca
tion
diff
eren
tial
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
mal
e/fe
mal
elit
erac
y
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
hre
e-le
vel
multile
velm
odel
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits;
also
incl
udes
dis
tric
tsan
dst
ates
.
Odds
ofre
cent
IPV
among
wom
enw
ithout
educa
tion
wer
e5.6
1tim
es(C
I:3.5
3,
8.9
2)
those
ofco
llege
-ed
uca
ted
wom
en.O
R1.8
4fo
rw
ives
ofc
olle
ge-e
duca
ted
men
;O
R1.1
8(C
I:1.4
4,2.3
5)
for
wom
enw
ith
more
educa
tion
than
thei
rhusb
and
(CI:
1.0
5,
1.3
3).
Aft
erco
ntr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
fact
ors
,co
mm
unity
mal
ean
dfe
mal
elit
erac
yle
vels
wer
ein
vers
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
(OR
s1.1
0to
1.1
4fo
rlo
wes
tte
rtile
nei
ghborh
oods)
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
dat
ase
t.�
Appro
pri
ate
use
ofm
ultile
velm
odel
ing
and
sound
choic
esofva
riab
les.
Lim
itat
ions:
�A
lthough
the
study
addre
sses
the
educa
tion
of
wom
enas
ari
skfa
ctor,
the
intr
oduct
ion
does
not
conta
inm
uch
mat
eria
lon
theo
ries
upon
whic
hhyp
oth
eses
are
bas
ed�T
he
Dis
cuss
ion
sect
ion
des
crib
esposs
ible
pat
hw
ays,
but
thes
ear
ere
lative
lyth
inco
mpar
edto
oth
erst
udie
san
dfo
cus
larg
ely
on
mat
eria
lin
tere
sts,
rath
erth
anth
ere
lative
role
ofw
om
enin
soci
ety.
�M
ore
ove
r,th
eydo
not
fully
addre
sshow
nei
ghborh
ood-lev
ellit
erac
yw
ork
sas
anel
emen
tofth
ispat
hw
ay.
�Def
initio
nofl
ifetim
eIP
Vas
‘‘sin
ceth
eag
eof1
5’’m
aylim
itre
port
s.
(con
tinue
d)
9
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Ack
erso
nan
dSu
bra
man
ian,2008
India
Study
des
ign:
Cro
ss-s
ectional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edIn
dia
nw
om
enag
es15–49
(n¼
83,6
27)
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e1998-9
9In
dia
nN
atio
nal
Fam
ilyH
ealth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
or
inlif
etim
e(s
ince
age
15)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,a
geat
mar
riag
e,re
ligio
n,s
oci
alca
ste,
stan
dar
dofliv
ing,
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
loca
tion
of
nei
ghborh
ood
(urb
an/r
ura
l),w
om
an’s
educa
tion,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,ed
uca
tion
diff
eren
tial
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
wea
lth,per
capita
stat
edom
estic
pro
duct
,st
ate
gender
equal
ity,
stat
ehum
andev
elopm
ent
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits.
Als
oin
cludes
stat
es.
Stat
e-le
velge
nder
equal
ity
inve
r-se
lyas
soci
ated
with
indiv
idual
likel
ihood
ofr
ecen
tIP
V(O
R¼
0.7
5).
Nei
ghborh
ood
wea
lth,
per
capita
stat
edom
estic
pro
duct
,an
dst
ate
hum
andev
elopm
ent
wer
enon-
sign
ifica
nt.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�The
only
pap
erto
explic
itly
exam
ine
gender
equal
ity
�St
rong
anal
ytic
alap
pro
ach
and
consi
der
atio
nof
thre
ehie
rarc
hic
alle
vels
ofin
fluen
ceLi
mitat
ions:
�T
he
geogr
aphic
alar
eafo
rw
hic
hge
nder
equal
ity
ism
easu
red
isth
est
ate,
not
asm
alle
rnei
ghborh
ood
or
com
munity
leve
lunit.
Stuev
ean
dO
’Donnel
l,2008
Bro
okl
yn,N
Y,
USA
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:A
fric
anA
mer
ican
and
Latina
wom
en,ag
ed19–20
(n¼
550).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
eR
each
for
Hea
lth
Study
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
,se
xual
or
emotional
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,e
duca
tion,p
aren
ting,
His
pan
ic,e
thnic
iden
tity
,dis
crim
inat
ion,ei
ght
grad
eri
skbeh
avio
rs(a
ggre
ssio
n,al
coholuse
,lif
etim
ese
x)
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
viole
nce
exper
ience
s
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Com
munity
viole
nce
exper
ience
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
emotional
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.2
6)
and
mar
ginal
ly,posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.1
3)
and
phys
ical
IPV
per
pet
ration
(OR
¼1.1
3).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Id
entifie
slin
kage
bet
wee
nex
per
ience
sof
com
munity
viole
nce
and
indiv
idual
par
tner
viole
nce
.Li
mitat
ions:
�D
oes
not
use
am
ultile
velm
odel
ing
fram
ework
.
Frye
etal
.,2008
New
York
City,
USA
(urb
an)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:al
lfe
mic
ides
from
1990–1999,ag
ed16
and
old
er(n¼
1,8
61).
Dat
aso
urc
es:au
topsy
report
s,cr
ime
scen
ean
dpolic
ere
port
s,an
dad
ditio
nal
docu
men
tsco
nta
inin
gdem
ogr
aphic
info
rmat
ion
Outc
om
e:in
tim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
e(a
sco
mpar
edto
oth
erty
pes
offe
mic
ide)
,cl
assi
fied
usi
ng
polic
ere
port
and
info
rmat
ion
on
vict
im-p
erpet
rato
rre
lationsh
ipC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,fo
reig
n-b
orn
,ra
ce/e
thnci
tyPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
educa
tional
/occ
upat
ional
atta
inm
ent,
imm
igra
nt
conce
ntr
atio
n/iso
lation,ex
tern
alphys
ical
dis
ord
er,in
tern
alphys
ical
dis
ord
er,so
cial
cohes
ion,per
capita
inco
me
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
model
ing;
com
par
edin
tim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
esto
oth
erfe
mic
ides
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
e59
resi
den
tial
com
munity
dis
tric
tsdel
inea
ted
by
the
New
York
City
Offic
eof
City
Pla
nnin
g.
No
sign
ifica
nt
nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elef
fect
iden
tifie
d,w
hen
con-
trolli
ng
for
nei
ghborh
ood
leve
lper
capita
inco
me.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
he
first
study
toex
amin
enei
ghborh
ood
leve
lco
rrel
ates
with
intim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
e(I
PF)
.Li
mitat
ions:
�C
om
par
ison
group
isoth
erfe
mic
ides
,so
does
not
des
crib
eth
ein
fluen
ceofn
eigh
borh
ood
conditio
ns
on
risk
ofIP
F,but
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nnei
ghborh
ood
conditio
ns
and
the
dis
trib
ution
of
types
offe
mic
ide,
incl
udin
gIP
F.
Nav
edan
dPer
sson,
2008
Ban
glad
esh
(one
urb
anan
done
rura
lre
gion)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:e
ver-
pre
gnan
tw
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
2,5
53)
Dat
aso
urc
e:a
popula
tion-b
ased
surv
eyas
soci
ated
with
the
WH
Om
ulti-co
untr
yst
udy
on
dom
estic
viole
nce
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
duri
ng
any
pre
gnan
cyC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
het
her
wom
anea
rns
anin
com
e,sa
vings
/cre
dit
group
mem
ber
ship
,m
arri
age
invo
lvin
ga
dow
ry,in
-law
sliv
ein
house
hold
,rel
iance
on
nat
alfa
mily
’ssu
pport
ina
cris
is,sp
ousa
lco
mm
unic
atio
n,w
om
an’s
moth
erab
use
dby
her
fath
er,husb
and’s
moth
erab
use
dby
his
fath
er,in
com
e,M
usl
imPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:hig
hco
nce
rnab
out
leve
lof
crim
ein
the
com
munity
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
regr
essi
on
model
.N
eigh
borh
ood
def
ined
asm
ohol
las
inth
eurb
anre
gion
and
villa
ges
inth
eru
ralre
gion.
Nei
ghborh
ood
mea
sure
sw
ere
aggr
egat
esofin
div
idual
resp
onse
s.
Ahig
her
pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
thei
rco
mm
unity
isas
soci
ated
with
asl
ightly
incr
ease
dlik
elih
ood
of
spousa
lvi
ole
nce
duri
ng
pre
gnan
cy(O
R¼
1.0
9)
inth
eurb
anre
gion;no
asso
ciat
ion
was
found
inth
eru
ralre
gion.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
sco
mm
unity
leve
lin
fluen
ces
on
viole
nce
agai
nst
wom
enin
adev
elopin
gco
untr
yco
nte
xt.
Lim
itat
ions:
�C
onsi
der
sonly
one
com
munity
char
acte
rist
ic.
Ree
det
al.,
2009
Bost
on,U
SA(f
our
urb
anco
mm
unity
hea
lth
cente
rs)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:A
fric
anA
mer
ican
men
ages
18–65
who
report
edonly
fem
ale
par
tner
s(n¼
569).
Dat
aso
urc
e:su
rvey
edas
par
tof
the
Bla
ckan
dA
fric
anA
mer
ican
Men
’sH
ealth
Study
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
IPV
per
pet
ration
incu
rren
thet
erose
xual
rela
tionsh
ipC
ova
riat
e:ag
e(o
ther
cova
riat
esw
ere
explo
red
inuniv
aria
tean
alys
esbut
did
not
mee
tin
clusi
on
criter
iafo
rth
em
odel
)Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:per
ceiv
edfr
equen
cyof
viole
nce
innei
ghborh
ood,per
ceiv
ednee
dto
fight
tosu
rviv
ein
nei
ghborh
ood
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Aft
erad
just
ing
for
age,
per
ceiv
edfr
equen
cyofnei
ghborh
ood
viole
nce
as‘‘a
grea
tdea
l’’(O
R¼
3.1
)or
som
e/ve
rylit
tle
(OR
¼2.9
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
,as
com
par
edto
‘‘none.
’’A
gain
adju
stin
gfo
rag
e,per
ceiv
ednee
dto
fight
tosu
rviv
ein
nei
ghborh
ood
as‘‘a
grea
tdea
l’’(O
R¼
2.0
)or
‘‘som
e/ve
rylit
tle’
’(O
R¼
2.1
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
,as
com
par
edto
‘‘none.
’’In
additio
n,in
volv
emen
tin
stre
etvi
ole
nce
(OR¼
3.0
)an
dga
ngs
(OR¼
2.0
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
likel
ihood
ofIP
Vper
pet
ration.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Id
entifie
slin
kage
bet
wee
nex
per
ience
sof
nei
ghborh
ood
viole
nce
and
gang
mem
ber
ship
and
indiv
idual
par
tner
viole
nce
among
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anm
en.
Lim
itat
ions:
�D
oes
not
use
am
ultile
velm
odel
ing
fram
ework
.
(con
tinue
d)
10
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Cae
tano
etal
.,2010
USA
(48
contigu
ous
stat
es)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:m
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gco
uple
sin
the
48
contigu
ous
united
stat
es(n¼
1025)
couple
s).
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
edfa
ceto
face
aspar
tofa
random
pro
bab
ility
sam
ple
repre
senta
tive
ofm
arri
edan
dco
hab
itin
gco
uple
s
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
duri
ng
pri
or
year
(mal
eto
fem
ale
and
fem
ale
tom
ale,
vict
imiz
atio
nan
dper
pet
ration)
Cova
riat
es:av
erag
ew
eekl
yal
coholco
nsu
mption,
bin
gedri
nki
ng,
race
,et
hnic
ity,
age,
inco
me
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
educa
tion,
unem
plo
ymen
t,w
ork
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion;
aver
age
ofco
uple
sper
ceiv
edso
cial
cohes
ion
and
per
ceiv
edin
form
also
cial
contr
ol
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Pat
han
alys
is.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as2000
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct.
Nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty
was
sign
ifica
ntly
corr
elat
edw
ith
IPV
inunad
just
edan
alys
is,but
the
pat
hs
via
soci
alco
hes
ion
and
per
ceiv
edso
cial
contr
ol
wer
enon-s
ignifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�In
corp
ora
tes
the
notion
ofst
ress
aspar
tofth
epat
hw
aylin
king
nei
ghborh
oods
tooutc
om
es,an
din
corp
ora
tes
Sam
pso
n,R
auden
bush
,an
dEar
ls’s
(1997)co
nce
ptofs
oci
alco
ntr
ol/so
cial
cohes
ion
atth
eC
ensu
sT
ract
leve
l.�
Als
oin
corp
ora
tes
Gel
les’
(1985)
soci
al-s
truct
ura
lth
eory
,whic
hhas
pre
viousl
ybee
nap
plie
dto
child
mal
trea
tmen
tas
wel
l.Li
mitat
ions:
�Se
lect
ion
bia
sco
uld
affe
ctst
udy
findin
gsgi
ven
the
pro
port
ion
ofnonpar
tici
pat
ing,
elig
ible
couple
s.O
’Cam
po
etal
.,1995
Bal
tim
ore
City,
USA
(urb
an)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:P
regn
ant
wom
en(n¼
160)
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
sco
nduct
edduri
ng
3rd
trim
este
ran
d6
month
spost
par
tum
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
6m
onth
sas
mea
sure
dby
Confli
ctT
actics
Scal
e(C
TS)
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,em
plo
ymen
t,m
arital
stat
us,
educa
tion,par
ity,
race
,co
nfid
ant:
mal
epar
tner
,co
nfid
ant:
soci
alsu
pport
,oth
erin
stru
men
tal
support
,par
tner
dru
guse
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
ratio
ofhom
eow
ner
sto
rente
rs,u
nem
plo
ymen
tra
te,p
erca
pita
inco
me
less
than
$13,5
00
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
wo-lev
ello
gis-
tic
regr
essi
on
model
ing
and
GEE
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elva
riab
les
(unem
plo
ymen
tan
dper
capita
inco
me)
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
incr
ease
dri
skan
dth
enei
ghborh
ood-lev
elva
riab
les
modifi
edth
ere
lationsh
ips
of
the
indiv
idual
-lev
elva
riab
les
toth
eri
skofvi
ole
nce
.T
his
study
found
that
nei
ghborh
ood
unem
plo
ymen
tin
crea
sed
risk
for
IPV
by
more
thre
etim
esusi
ng
the
MLM
appro
ach;an
dnea
rly
5tim
esusi
ng
the
GEE
appro
ach.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
om
par
edtw
om
ethods
ofes
tim
atin
gm
ultile
vel
asso
ciat
ions.
�In
cluded
dis
cuss
ion
ofim
plic
atio
ns
for
public
hea
lth
polic
yan
dpra
ctic
e.Li
mitat
ions:
�Em
phas
isis
on
the
anal
ysis
appro
ach,w
ith
little
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
eore
tica
lbac
kdro
p.
Cunra
diet
al.,
2000
48
contigu
ous
stat
es,U
SA(n
atio
nal
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:B
lack
,W
hite
and
His
pan
icco
uple
s(n¼
1,4
40
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sas
par
tof
1995
Nat
ional
Alc
oholSu
rvey
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)
asm
easu
red
by
am
odifi
edve
rsio
nofth
eC
TS
Cova
riat
es:i
nco
me,
mar
ital
stat
us,
child
ren
under
17,
year
sliv
edw
ith
par
tner
,co
uple
mea
nag
e,co
uple
age
diff
eren
ce,co
uple
mea
ned
uca
tion,co
uple
educa
tion
diff
eren
ce;fo
rboth
mal
ean
dfe
mal
epar
tner
s—unem
plo
ymen
t,ch
ildhood
viole
nce
,ap
pro
valofm
arital
aggr
essi
on,al
coholre
late
dpro
ble
ms,
alco
holvo
lum
e,im
puls
ivity
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty
def
ined
as1990
Cen
sus
Tra
cts
with
>20%
livin
gunder
Feder
alpove
rty
line;
under
educa
tion
(%of
popula
tion
without
hig
hsc
hooled
uca
tion);
unem
plo
ymen
t(%
ofper
sons
>16
year
sin
the
labor
forc
ebut
curr
ently
unem
plo
yed);
work
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion
(%ofem
plo
yed
popula
tion
indef
ined
‘‘work
ing
clas
s’’occ
upat
ions,
such
ascl
eric
al,sa
les,
mac
hin
eoper
ators
,et
c.).
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
with
anal
yses
stra
tifie
dby
race
(White,
Bla
ck,H
ispan
ic).
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Under
educa
tion,w
ork
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion,an
dpove
rty
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
IPV
for
all
race
s,but
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edonly
for
bla
ckco
uple
s(O
R¼
2.8
7)
for
mal
e-to
-fem
ale
par
tner
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
mea
sure
sofin
div
idual
char
acte
rist
ics
and
outc
om
eva
riab
le.
�M
easu
res
ofnei
ghborh
ood
vari
able
sw
ell-def
ined
,al
though
som
edom
ains
may
be
open
toques
tion
(e.g
.,def
initio
nofw
ork
ing
clas
s)�
The
auth
ors
pro
vide
polic
yim
plic
atio
ns,
noting
that
stat
e/Fe
der
al/loca
lgo
vern
men
tssh
ould
aim
toal
levi
ate
inner
-city
pove
rty,
bec
ause
ofits
rela
-tionsh
ipto
IPV
.Li
mitat
ions:
�N
eigh
borh
ood
isdef
ined
asth
eC
ensu
sT
ract
,but
ther
eis
no
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
em
eanin
gof
nei
ghborh
ood
or
com
munity,
eith
erfr
om
ath
eore
tica
lor
pra
ctic
alst
andpoin
t.C
ensu
sT
ract
sdo
not
nec
essa
rily
def
ine
real
nei
ghborh
ood
boundar
ies.
�T
her
eis
no
dis
cuss
ion
ofth
eory
eith
erin
sele
ctio
nofva
riab
les
or
mea
sure
sor
inre
sults.
Mea
rset
al.,
2001
Larg
eurb
anco
unty
inT
exas
(USA
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:IP
Vca
ses
resu
ltin
gin
polic
ean
d/o
rco
urt
reco
rds.
Dat
aso
urc
e:ca
ses
sam
ple
dfr
om
court
and
polic
ere
cord
sfo
rJa
nuar
y,A
ugu
stan
dO
ctober
for
1990,1991
and
1992
(n¼
336).
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
(der
ived
from
CT
S)pre
vale
nce
and
tim
eto
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,num
ber
ofpri
or
vict
imiz
atio
ns,
num
ber
oftim
espri
or
dru
guse
,ra
ce/e
thnic
ity
Com
munity-
leve
lco
vari
ates
:1990
Cen
sus
Blo
ckm
edia
nfa
mily
inco
me
coded
into
thre
eca
tego
ries
Pre
dic
tor
ofin
tere
st:C
ensu
sB
lock
med
ian
fam
ilyin
com
e
Anal
ytic
met
hod:C
ox
regr
essi
on
surv
ival
anal
ysis
toex
amin
eef
ficac
yofpro
tect
ive
ord
ers
(PO
s),ar
rest
s,an
dco
mbin
edPO
and
arre
st.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asU
SC
ensu
sB
lock
.
Low
Cen
sus
Blo
ckm
edia
nfa
mily
inco
me
was
mar
ginal
lysi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
anin
crea
sed
re-v
ictim
izat
ion
rate
(RR¼
1.7
52).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�So
lidth
eore
tica
lbas
isab
out
how
and
why
indiv
idual
and
conte
xtu
alfa
ctors
mig
ht
influ
ence
the
effic
acy
ofpolic
ein
terv
entions
(e.g
.,PO
).Li
mitat
ions:
�R
esults
may
be
limited
inab
ility
toge
ner
aliz
ebec
ause
not
allIP
Vin
ciden
tsor
re-v
ictim
izat
ions
are
report
edto
the
polic
e.
(con
tinue
d)
11
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Bro
wnin
g2002
Chic
ago,U
SAD
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enin
volv
edin
het
erose
xual
rela
tionsh
ips
Dat
aso
urc
e:su
rvey
edas
par
tof
the
1995–1997
Chic
ago
Hea
lth
and
Soci
alLi
feSu
rvey
(n¼
199).
Outc
om
e:nonle
thal
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:ra
ce,ag
e,in
com
e,se
xual
abuse
duri
ng
child
hood,ed
uca
tion,m
arital
stat
us,
jeal
ousy
asso
urc
eofco
nfli
ct,num
ber
ofco
nfli
ctso
urc
es,
rela
tionsh
ipdura
tion,ye
ars
resi
din
gin
the
nei
ghborh
ood,fr
eetim
ew
ith
mutu
alfr
iends/
fam
ilyPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,re
siden
tial
stab
ility
,im
mig
rant
conce
ntr
atio
n,co
llect
ive
effic
acy,
norm
of
nonin
terv
ention,vi
ole
nt
vict
imiz
atio
n
Anal
ytic
met
hods:
Tw
o-
and
thre
e-le
velhie
rarc
hic
allo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
sD
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
Chic
ago
nei
ghborh
ood
boundar
ies,
whic
har
ebas
edon
1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
cts.
While
contr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
-le
velch
arac
teri
stic
s,co
llect
ive
effic
acy
issi
gnifi
cantly
neg
a-tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
par
tner
viole
nce
and
stro
nge
rnonin
-te
rven
tion
norm
sar
esi
gnifi
-ca
ntly
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
viole
nce
;C
once
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,re
siden
tial
stab
i-lit
yan
dim
mig
rant
conce
ntr
a-tion
wer
enot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
par
tner
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�V
ery
stro
ng
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsth
atgi
veco
nte
xt
toth
ehyp
oth
eses
and
the
sele
ctio
nan
dco
nst
ruct
ion
ofva
riab
les.
�St
rong
des
crip
tion
of‘‘n
eigh
borh
ood’’
bas
edon
surv
eyre
sponden
ts’del
inea
tion
ofnei
ghborh
ood
�T
he
conce
pt
of‘‘c
olle
ctiv
eef
ficac
y’’has
bee
nw
ell-
dev
eloped
by
this
rese
arch
group
and
inco
rpo-
rate
din
tooth
erst
udie
sofvi
ole
nce
,ab
use
,an
dhea
lth.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Sa
mple
size
consi
der
atio
ns
limited
stat
istica
lpow
er.
Van
Wyk
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
s(n¼
6,6
10
couple
s).
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:ra
ce,su
bje
ctiv
efin
anci
alsa
tisf
action,
dura
tion
ofunio
n,m
arital
stat
us,
conta
cts
with
oth
ers,
SES
for
couple
sPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
Met
hods:
Logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
geis
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
when
indiv
idual
race
isnot
pre
sent
inth
em
odel
(indiv
idual
race
and
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
org
aniz
atio
nw
ere
colli
nea
r).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
groundin
gin
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
nth
eory
and
soci
olo
gica
lw
ork
�In
cludes
anex
amin
atio
nofin
div
idual
-lev
elso
cial
support
inco
nce
rtw
ith
stru
ctura
ldis
adva
nta
ge(a
soppose
dto
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
n)
�St
rong
conce
ptu
aliz
atio
nofco
mm
unity/
nei
ghborh
ood
and
nei
ghborh
ood
fact
ors
�Use
dfa
ctor
anal
ysis
bas
edon
14
Cen
sus
vari
able
sto
crea
tean
index
tom
easu
rest
ruct
ura
ldis
adva
nta
ge.
Lim
itat
ions:
�D
oes
not
emplo
ym
ultile
velm
odel
ing
stru
cture
,th
us
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfal
lacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
Ben
son
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
wav
es1
and
2ofth
eN
SFH
(n¼
5,0
31
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
e-to
-fem
ale
or
fem
ale-
to-m
ale
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration)bas
edon
ques
tions
der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:m
ale
dri
nki
ng/
dru
gs,fe
mal
eso
cial
support
,ra
ce,em
plo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
,in
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,ch
ange
inin
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
,ag
e,m
an’s
educa
tion,
pri
or
report
ofvi
ole
nce
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,nei
ghborh
ood
resi
den
tial
inst
abili
ty
Logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
for
viole
nce
and
oth
erin
div
idual
char
acte
rist
ics
inw
ave
1dat
ain
dic
ates
that
nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
ge,
nei
ghborh
ood
resi
den
tial
inst
abili
ty,m
ale
emplo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
,an
dsu
bje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
influ
ence
likel
ihood
ofvi
ole
nce
atw
ave
2.In
the
final
model
,nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
gew
asas
soci
ated
with
IPV
(OR¼
1.3
6;ns)
.R
esid
ential
inst
abili
tysi
gnifi
cantly
reduce
dth
eodds
ofIP
V(O
R¼
0.1
3).
Oth
ersi
gnifi
cant
vari
able
sw
ere
viole
nce
atw
ave
1(O
R:2.4
8),
emplo
ymen
tin
stab
ility
(OR
:1.4
0),
and
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
(OR
:1.3
3)
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsfr
om
the
soci
olo
gica
llit
erat
ure
with
effo
rtto
under
stan
dw
het
her
asso
ciat
ions
obse
rved
atth
eag
greg
ate
leve
l(e.
g.,r
ates
ofIP
Var
ehig
her
indis
adva
nta
ged
nei
ghborh
oods)
exis
tbec
ause
ofco
nte
xtu
alef
fect
sor
bec
ause
ofre
port
ing
bia
s.�
Cre
ated
indic
esofc
once
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
gebas
edon
5C
ensu
sva
riab
les
model
edon
pre
vious
work
.Li
mitat
ions:
�D
idnot
emplo
ym
ultile
velm
odel
ing
stru
cture
,th
us
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfa
llacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
(con
tinue
d)
12
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
DeM
aris
etal
.,2003
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:C
ouple
sin
surv
eyw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
sw
her
eth
em
ale
par
tner
was
seek
ing
emplo
ymen
tor
emplo
yed
(n¼
4,0
95
couple
s)D
ata
sourc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
es:th
ree
cate
gory
‘‘vio
lence
pro
file’
’va
riab
le:
no
viole
nce
,phys
ical
aggr
essi
on,in
tense
mal
evi
ole
nce
;der
ived
from
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:re
lationsh
ipdura
tion,m
arital
/cohab
itin
gst
atus,
wom
an’s
age
atunio
n,fir
stunio
n,m
an’s
isola
tion,h
azar
dofex
clusi
on,n
um
ber
ofch
ildre
n,
subst
ance
abuse
,dis
agre
emen
tfr
equen
cy,
dis
agre
emen
tst
yle,
man
and
wom
anem
plo
ymen
t,ed
uca
tion,an
dge
nder
ideo
logi
esPre
dic
tors
ofIn
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultin
om
ial
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
bas
edon
1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
cts
Nei
ghborh
ood
econom
icdis
adva
nta
gew
assi
gnifi
cantly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
inte
nse
viole
nce
(OR¼
1.0
5)
asco
mpar
edto
no
viole
nce
;dis
adva
nta
gew
asnot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
aggr
essi
on,w
hen
com
par
edto
no
viole
nce
.Si
gnifi
cant
asso
ciat
ions
bet
wee
nin
div
idual
fact
ors
and
phys
ical
aggr
essi
on
incl
uded
both
par
tner
sbei
ng
inth
eir
first
unio
n(O
R:1.3
5),
num
ber
of
child
ren
(pro
tect
ive)
(OR
:0.8
7),
and
subst
ance
abuse
(OR
:1.5
7).
Indiv
idual
risk
fact
ors
for
inte
nse
mal
evi
ole
nce
(ver
sus
no
viole
nce
)in
cluded
the
fem
ale
par
tner
hav
ing
anon-t
raditio
nal
ideo
l-ogy
(OR
:1.6
1)
and
subst
ance
abuse
(OR
:1.6
6).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�A
sw
ith
the
oth
erst
udie
sfr
om
this
group
(lis
tfr
om
above
cita
tions)
,th
eore
tica
lbac
kgro
und
and
inte
grat
ion
isst
rong
and
support
sth
edev
elopm
ent
ofre
sear
chques
tions
that
inquir
eab
outa
vari
ety
off
orc
esoper
atin
gat
seve
rall
evel
sofs
oci
allif
ean
dth
eir
asso
ciat
ion
and/o
rim
pac
ton
viole
nce
.�
Inte
grat
essu
chin
div
idual
fact
ors
asre
lationsh
ipst
ress
ors
(e.g
.,as
pec
tsofth
ere
lationsh
ipth
atpro
mote
ongo
ing
tensi
on),
confli
ctm
anag
emen
t,an
d‘‘c
onditio
nin
gfa
ctors
(e.g
.,is
ola
tion
from
soci
alnet
work
s)as
pro
xim
alin
fluen
ces.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Although
the
indiv
idual
and
conte
xtu
alfa
ctors
note
dab
ove
carr
yth
eore
tica
lgr
avitas
,it
isuncl
ear
that
the
stat
istica
lpow
er,dat
aso
urc
e,or
anal
ytic
met
hodolo
gyis
capab
leoftr
uly
dis
tingu
ishin
gth
ese
fact
ors
.Rel
atio
nsh
ipst
ress
ors
,for
exam
ple
,ar
ean
alyz
edin
div
idual
ly,n
ot
thro
ugh
crea
tion
ofa
stre
ssor
index
or
scal
e.A
sin
pri
or
studie
s,th
eydes
crib
elim
itat
ions
rela
ted
toco
llinea
rity
.�
As
inpri
or
studie
s,th
eydid
not
emplo
ym
ultile
vel
model
ing
stru
cture
,thus
sugg
esting
that
ecolo
gica
lfa
llacy
may
under
liefin
din
gs.
McQ
ues
tion,2003
Colo
mbia
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:
Wom
enofre
pro
duct
ive
age
(n¼
6,1
31)
Dat
aso
urc
e:C
olo
mbia
’s1995
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey.
Outc
om
es:ev
er(1
)hit
or
(2)
forc
edto
hav
ese
xby
curr
ent
husb
and/p
artn
erC
ova
riat
es:m
arital
stat
us,
age,
num
ber
ofliv
ebir
ths,
resp
onden
t’s
and
par
tner
’sed
uca
tion
and
occ
upat
ional
pre
stig
e,dura
ble
vs.d
irt
floor,
urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce,re
gion
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:cl
ust
er-lev
elre
port
sof
coer
ced
sex
and
bea
ting
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
wo-lev
elra
n-
dom
inte
rcep
tlo
gist
icre
gres
-si
on
model
ing
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits
from
surv
ey
Soci
alef
fect
sm
easu
res
are
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
for
both
coer
ced
sex
(OR
¼1.3
49)
and
bea
ting
(OR¼
1.6
43),
indic
atin
gth
atso
cial
norm
sm
ayin
fluen
ceri
skfo
rIP
V
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
sso
cial
effe
cts
explic
itly
and
ara
nge
of
cova
riat
es.
�T
he
only
study
conduct
edin
Colu
mbia
.�
DH
Sm
easu
res
ofso
cioec
onom
icposi
tion
inco
rpora
ted.
Lim
itat
ions:
�M
easu
rem
ents
ofso
cial
norm
sar
eag
greg
ates
of
indiv
idual
resp
onse
suse
dto
asse
ssoutc
om
esan
ddo
not
consi
der
the
exis
tence
or
nat
ure
of
com
ple
xso
cial
net
work
s.K
oen
iget
al.,
2003
Ban
glad
esh,tw
ore
gions
(rura
l)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
10,3
68)
Dat
aso
urc
e:1993
Know
ledge
,A
ttitude
and
Pra
ctic
esu
rvey
ofth
eFa
mily
Hea
lth
Res
earc
hPro
ject
Outc
om
e:Phys
ical
bea
ting
ofw
om
anby
husb
and
or
husb
and’s
fam
ilyC
ova
riat
es:N
um
ber
ofl
ivin
gso
ns,
wife
’sag
e,re
ligio
n,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
ife’s
educa
tion,
landhold
ings
,fa
mily
stru
cture
,cr
edit
group
mem
ber
ship
,w
om
en’s
auto
nom
yin
dex
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity-
leve
lw
om
en’s
educa
tion,cr
edit
group
mem
ber
ship
,w
om
en’s
auto
nom
yin
dex
Anal
ytic
met
hods:
Tw
o-lev
ello
git
model
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
eci
vil
adm
inis
trat
ive
unit
calle
da
mou
za,w
hic
hw
asuse
das
the
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunit.
Nei
ghborh
ood
mea
sure
sar
eag
greg
ates
ofsu
rvey
resp
onse
s.
Asm
alle
rpro
port
ion
ofw
om
enin
the
com
munity
who
bel
ong
tosa
vings
and
cred
itgr
oups
and
alo
wer
index
ofw
om
en’s
auto
nom
yar
esi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
ofv
iole
nce
(by
husb
and
or
husb
and’s
fam
ily)
inone
ofth
est
udy
regi
ons
(Jes
sore
)but
not
the
oth
er(S
iraj
gonij)
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
he
first
study
conduct
edin
Ban
glad
esh.
�G
uid
edby
aco
nce
ptu
alfr
amew
ork
usi
ng
the
conce
pt
ofw
om
en’s
auto
nom
y/em
pow
erm
ent
asa
dom
ain
�St
rong
anal
ysis
appro
ach.
Lim
itat
ions:
�T
he
tim
eper
iod
within
whic
hm
easu
red
IPV
took
pla
cew
asnotcl
earl
ysp
ecifi
edin
the
mea
sure
men
tin
stru
men
tan
dac
tions
const
ituting
phys
ical
viole
nce
wer
enot
explic
itly
stat
ed.
(con
tinue
d)
13
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Dek
eser
edy,
Schw
artz
,A
lvi,
&T
om
asze
wsk
i.,2003
Eas
tern
Onta
rio,C
A(u
rban
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
enan
dw
om
enin
public
housi
ng
esta
tes
(n¼
325)
Dat
aso
urc
e:Q
ual
ity
of
Nei
ghborh
ood
Life
Surv
ey
Outc
om
e:m
oder
ate
or
seve
rephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
(mea
sure
dusi
ng
modifi
edve
rsio
nofC
TS-
2)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge(o
ther
sw
ere
test
edbut
did
not
ente
rm
odel
s)Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elper
ceiv
edco
llect
ive
effic
acy,
dis
ord
er,cr
ime
leve
l,dru
gpro
ble
ms
Anal
ytic
Met
hod:Lo
gist
ic,
forw
ard
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
report
sofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Aft
erco
ntr
olli
ng
for
age,
hig
her
colle
ctiv
eef
ficac
yis
sign
ifica
ntly,
neg
ativ
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
theo
retica
lunder
pin
nin
gsw
ith
explic
atio
nof
soci
aldis
org
aniz
atio
nan
dco
llect
ive
effic
acy
asec
olo
gica
lva
riab
les.
�U
ses
am
odel
tolin
kco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics
tovi
ctim
izat
ion,ei
ther
by
way
ofec
olo
gica
lpro
cess
es,or
dir
ect
impac
tofth
enei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Lim
itat
ions:
�G
ener
aliz
abili
tyis
limited
by
the
study
popula
tion.
Ben
son
etal
.,2004
USA
Des
ign:C
ross
sect
ional
study
Popula
tion:
White
and
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anm
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gco
uple
sin
wav
es1
and
2ofth
eN
atio
nal
Surv
eyofFa
mili
esan
dH
ouse
hold
s(n¼
5,6
47)
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sw
ith
couple
sin
cluded
inw
aves
1an
d2
ofth
eN
SFH
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
,usi
ng
item
sbas
edon
the
CT
S.C
ova
riat
es:In
div
idual
race
,ec
onom
icdis
tres
s(index
bas
edon
house
hold
size
toin
com
era
tio,
satisf
action
with
finan
ces,
and
emplo
ymen
tst
abili
ty),
mal
eed
uca
tional
atta
inm
ent,
mal
eal
coholu
se,a
nd
age,
subje
ctiv
efin
anci
alst
rain
,job
inst
abili
ty,ed
uca
tion,in
com
eto
nee
ds
ratio,
dri
nki
ng
pro
ble
ms
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge
Anal
ytic
Met
hod:S
tepw
ise
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Conce
ntr
ated
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
adva
nta
geis
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
risk
ofI
PV
(OR
¼1.3
1),
and
reduce
sO
Rfo
rra
ceal
one
asa
risk
fact
or,
while
contr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
char
acte
rist
ics.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
heo
retica
lre
cogn
itio
nth
atth
eas
soci
atio
ns
obse
rved
bet
wee
nra
cean
dhea
lth
outc
om
es,
incl
udin
gvi
ole
nce
,m
aybe
confo
unded
by
com
munity
conte
xt.
�M
ore
ove
r,th
eau
thors
asse
rtth
atw
hile
man
yst
udie
snote
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nra
cean
dIP
V,
they
do
not
offer
inte
rpre
tation.
Lim
itat
ions:
�T
he
step
wis
ere
gres
sion
atte
mpts
toac
count
for
indiv
idual
and
com
munity
vari
able
sin
asi
ngl
em
odel
rath
erth
ana
multi-le
velm
odel
.La
uri
tsen
and
Schau
m,
2004
USA
(nat
ional
)
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study.
Popula
tion:W
om
en>
18
(n¼
*90,0
00)
Dat
aso
urc
e:par
tici
pan
tsin
the
1995
Are
a-Id
entifie
dN
atio
nal
Cri
me
Vic
tim
izat
ion
Surv
ey
Outc
om
e:A
ttem
pte
dor
com
ple
ted
assa
ult,ro
bber
y,ra
pe
or
sexual
assa
ult
inpri
or
6m
onth
sper
pet
rate
dby
acu
rren
tor
form
erin
tim
ate
par
tner
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,ra
ce,et
hnic
ity,
fam
ilyst
ruct
ure
(incl
udin
gm
arital
stat
us
and
pre
sence
ofc
hild
ren),
house
hold
inco
me,
even
ings
athom
e,le
ngt
hof
resi
den
cePre
dic
tors
ofIn
tere
st:N
eigh
borh
ood
per
cent
pove
rty,
fem
ale-
hea
ded
house
hold
sw
ith
child
ren,
bla
ck,an
dch
ildre
n<
18,an
dw
het
her
ince
ntr
alci
ty
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asU
SC
ensu
sT
ract
Livi
ng
ina
nei
ghborh
ood
with
anei
ghborh
ood
pro
port
ion
of
fem
ale-
hea
ded
house
hold
san
dch
ildre
n<
18
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.N
eigh
borh
ood
pove
rty
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
neg
ativ
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�A
ccounts
for
indiv
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics.
�In
form
edby
fem
inis
tth
eory
and
pro
vides
stro
ng
theo
retica
lbac
kgro
und
for
atte
mpting
tounder
stan
dth
ein
fluen
ceofco
nte
xt
on
IPV
.�
Info
rmed
by
fem
inis
tth
eory
asa
model
for
under
stan
din
gth
ein
fluen
ceofco
nte
xt
on
IPV
.Li
mitat
ions:
�A
nal
ysis
limited
toa
smal
lnum
ber
ofhig
hly
corr
elat
edco
mm
unity
char
acte
rist
ics
�T
heo
retica
lguid
ance
for
sele
ctio
nofch
arac
teri
stic
sis
limited
.N
aved
and
Per
sson
(2005)
Ban
glad
esh
(one
urb
anan
done
rura
lre
gion)
Des
ign:C
ross
sect
ional
study
Popula
tion:Eve
r-m
arri
edw
om
enofre
pro
duct
ive
age
(n¼
2,7
02).
Dat
aso
urc
e:Popula
tion-b
ased
surv
eyas
soci
ated
with
the
WH
Om
ulti-co
untr
yst
udy
on
dom
estic
viole
nce
.
Outc
om
e:Phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
12
month
san
dove
rlif
etim
e,bas
edon
CT
S,in
cludin
gfr
equen
cyC
ova
riat
es:I
ndiv
idual
-lev
el:A
ge,h
usb
and’s
educa
tion,
whet
her
wom
anea
rns
anin
com
e,sa
vings
/cre
dit
group
mem
ber
ship
,m
arri
age
invo
lvin
ga
dow
ry,
in-law
sliv
ein
house
hold
,rel
iance
on
nat
alfa
mily
’ssu
pport
ina
cris
is,sp
ousa
lco
mm
unic
atio
n,
wom
an’s
moth
erab
use
dby
her
fath
er,husb
and’s
moth
erab
use
dby
his
fath
er,in
com
e,M
usl
imPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:Pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
the
loca
lity,
com
munity-
leve
lat
titu
des
tow
ard
gender
role
s
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
regr
essi
on
model
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
em
ohol
laor
villa
ge.N
eigh
borh
ood
vari
able
sar
edef
ined
by
aggr
egat
ing
indiv
idual
resp
onse
s,not
incl
udin
gth
ere
sponden
t.
Ahig
her
pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
thei
rco
mm
unity
isas
soci
ated
with
anin
crea
sed
likel
ihood
of
phys
ical
intim
ate
par
tner
viole
nce
(OR¼
5.6
0in
the
urb
anre
gion
and
OR¼
6.0
7in
the
rura
lre
gion),
alth
ough
the
rela
tionsh
ipw
asnot
stat
istica
llysi
gnifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
once
ptu
alfr
amew
ork
for
det
erm
inan
tsofsp
ouse
abuse
that
incl
udes
indiv
idual
s,husb
and-w
ifedya
d,
fam
ily,im
med
iate
soci
alco
nte
xt
(e.g
.,su
pport
serv
ices
),an
dla
rger
soci
alco
nte
xt
(e.g
.,ge
nder
ineq
ual
ity)
,fo
llow
ing
Hei
se’s
(1998)
model
.�
Unlik
eoth
erst
udie
sofdom
estic
viole
nce
inth
isre
gion,th
eau
thors
use
dques
tionnai
reitem
sth
atsp
ecify
what
ism
eant
by
phys
ical
viole
nce
(bas
edon
CT
S).
�A
ccounte
dfo
rin
terg
ener
atio
nal
tran
smis
sion
of
viole
nce
,cr
ime
leve
lsin
the
com
munity,
and
loca
lat
titu
des
tow
ard
gender
role
s.�
Consi
der
ednum
erous
cova
riat
es.
�In
cluded
aqual
itat
ive
com
ponen
t(in
dep
thin
terv
iew
sw
ith
abuse
dw
om
en)
that
pro
vides
insi
ght
into
study
findin
gs.
Lim
itat
ions:
�C
om
munity-
leve
lva
riab
les
wer
eco
nst
ruct
edfr
om
indiv
idual
surv
eyre
sponse
s,ag
greg
ated
by
villa
ge(m
ohal
la),
rath
erth
anfr
om
apopula
tion
censu
sso
urc
e.�
Although
use
ofm
ultile
velm
odel
ing
isa
stre
ngt
h,
this
stre
ngt
his
limited
by
the
fact
that
the
com
munity
vari
able
sar
eag
greg
ated
from
indiv
idual
resp
onse
s.
(con
tinue
d)
14
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Flak
e,2005
Per
u(n
atio
nal
)St
udy
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
enag
ed15–49
curr
ently
livin
gw
ith
apar
tner
(n¼
15,9
91).
Dat
aso
urc
e:2000
Per
uD
emogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey.
Outc
om
e:Li
fetim
ephys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nC
ova
riat
es:Educa
tion,ag
eat
first
unio
n,ch
ildhood
exposu
reto
fam
ilyvi
ole
nce
,H
ouse
hold
-lev
el:
Mar
ital
stat
us,
fam
ilysi
ze,so
cioec
onom
icst
atus,
par
tner
alco
holc
onsu
mption,f
emal
eem
plo
ymen
t,ed
uca
tional
diff
eren
tial
,dec
isio
n-m
akin
gpow
erPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:re
gion
ofre
siden
ce,urb
an/
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
Def
initio
ns:
Reg
ions
des
crib
edge
ogr
aphic
ally
asco
asta
l(low
erpove
rty,
hig
her
educa
tion,bet
ter
acce
ssto
serv
ices
),hig
hla
nds
(rura
l,in
dig
enous
popula
tion,hig
hra
tes
ofill
iter
acy,
pove
rty,
and
unem
plo
ymen
t),an
dea
ster
nlo
wla
nds
(lea
stpopula
ted,
low
erdev
elopm
ent,
and
less
acce
ssto
educa
tion
and
oth
erre
sourc
es).
Wom
enliv
ing
inth
ehig
hla
nds
(OR¼
1.2
18)
and
the
east
ern
low
lands
(OR¼
1.3
74)
exper
ience
dm
ore
IPV
than
coas
talw
om
en;w
om
enin
smal
lci
ties
(OR¼
1.2
18)
and
the
countr
ysid
e(O
R¼
1.3
74)
exper
ience
dm
ore
IPV
than
wom
enin
larg
eci
ties
.T
he
hig
hla
nds
regi
on
ism
ore
rura
lan
dla
rgel
ypopula
ted
by
indig
enous
groups,
and
the
east
ern
low
lands
regi
on
isch
arac
teri
zed
by
den
setr
opic
alra
info
rest
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�So
lidth
eore
tica
lunder
pin
nin
gsth
atem
plo
yB
ronfe
nbre
nner
’s(1
979)
and
Hei
se’s
(1998)
ecolo
gica
lper
spec
tive
tounder
stan
din
terp
lay
of
fact
ors
atin
div
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
leve
ls.
�R
ecogn
izes
vari
able
sofin
tere
stas
‘‘ris
km
arke
rs’’
rath
erth
an‘‘r
isk
fact
ors
,’’th
us
reco
gniz
ing
that
the
vari
able
sas
soci
ated
with
viole
nce
may
not
be
causa
l�
Consi
der
sva
riab
les
mea
sure
dat
the
indiv
idual
,fa
mily
,an
dco
mm
unity
leve
l.�
Uniq
ue
inst
udyi
ng
South
Am
eric
anpopula
tion
and
incl
udin
gru
ralar
eas
and
indig
enous
groups
inth
esa
mple
.
Koen
iget
al.,
2006
4dis
tric
tsin
Utt
arPra
des
h,N
ort
hIn
dia
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edm
en15–59
(n¼
4,5
20)
Dat
aso
urc
e:In
terv
iew
sfr
om
the
Mal
eR
epro
duct
ive
Hea
lth
Surv
ey,w
hic
his
aco
mponen
tofth
ePER
FOR
Mst
udy,
ast
ratifie
d,m
ultis
tage
clust
ersa
mple
surv
eyco
nduct
edin
28
dis
tric
tsofU
ttar
Pra
des
h
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
viole
nce
per
pet
ration
agai
nst
wife
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
ife’s
educa
tion,
house
hold
asse
tin
dex
,eco
nom
icpre
ssure
,are
aof
resi
den
ce(r
ura
l/urb
an),
mar
ital
dura
tion,c
hild
less
,husb
and
his
tory
ofex
tram
arital
rela
tionsh
ip,
inte
rgen
erat
ional
exposu
reto
viole
nce
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
econom
icin
dex
,co
mm
unity
elec
tric
ity,
com
munity
fem
ale
educa
tion,co
mm
unity
gender
norm
s,co
mm
unity
wife
bea
ting
norm
s,dis
tric
tm
urd
erra
te
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
assu
rvey
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits;
incl
udes
dis
tric
ts.
Com
munity
‘‘wife
bea
ting’’norm
sat
both
the
pri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunit
and
dis
tric
tle
velw
ere
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
viole
nce
.D
istr
ict
murd
erra
tew
assi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edfo
rboth
phys
ical
and
sexual
viole
nce
.A
nec
onom
icin
dex
,co
mm
unity
elec
tric
ity,
fem
ale
educa
tion
and
gender
norm
sw
ere
all
non-s
ignifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
atio
nofan
ddev
elopm
ent
ofa
com
munity
econom
icin
dex
.�
Consi
der
atio
nofad
ditio
nal
com
munity
attitu
de
fact
ors
,su
chas
wife
-bea
ting
norm
s.�
Guid
edby
theo
ryab
out
conte
xt
and
com
munity
fact
ors
that
may
affe
ctri
skofdom
estic
viole
nce
.Li
mitat
ions:
�R
eport
sofvi
ole
nce
gath
ered
from
men
,w
ho
may
not
accu
rate
lyre
port
aneg
ativ
ebeh
avio
rlik
eab
use
(the
auth
ors
note
this
pote
ntial
limitat
ion).
Rag
hav
anet
al.,
2006
Six
US
stat
es(N
Y,
OK
,T
N,M
O,C
A,
NC
)
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:W
om
en>
18
rece
ivin
gor
elig
ible
for
Tem
-pora
ryA
ssis
tance
toN
eedy
Fam
ilies
(TA
NF)
and
had
adru
gpro
ble
m(n¼
50).
Dat
aso
urc
e:a
study
exam
inin
gso
cial
net
work
com
posi
tion
ina
wel
fare
tow
ork
pro
gram
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
last
6m
onth
s,bas
edon
item
sfr
om
the
Rev
ised
Confli
ctT
actics
Scal
eC
ova
riat
es:su
bst
ance
use
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
soci
aldis
ord
er,
net
work
IPV
,co
mm
unity
viole
nce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
IPV
within
aw
om
an’s
soci
alnet
work
and
com
munity
viole
nce
wer
esi
gnifi
cantly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
risk
;so
cial
dis
ord
ernot
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�B
ased
on
soci
aldis
ord
erth
eory
,in
cludin
gco
mm
unity
viole
nce
and
colle
ctiv
eef
ficac
y/so
cial
dis
org
aniz
atio
n.
�Fo
llow
sSa
mpso
net
al.in
conce
rnab
out
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nco
mm
unity
dis
ord
eran
dvi
ole
nce
.�
Stro
ng
expla
nat
ion
ofth
eory
bas
edon
curr
ent
rese
arch
.�
Consi
der
sth
ein
fluen
ceofvi
ole
nce
ina
wom
an’s
soci
alnet
work
on
her
ow
nri
skofvi
ole
nce
.In
cludes
subst
ance
abuse
asa
cova
riat
e.�
Four
dis
tinct
hyp
oth
eses
test
ed.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Li
mited
consi
der
atio
nofco
vari
ates
.C
unra
di,
2007
USA
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gH
ispan
ic,B
lack
and
White
indiv
idual
sag
ed18
and
old
er(n¼
21,0
29).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e2000
Nat
ional
House
hold
Surv
eyon
Dru
gA
buse
Outc
om
e:m
utu
alphys
ical
IPV
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:dri
nki
ng
leve
l,ra
ce/e
thnic
ity,
educa
tion,
age
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:per
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er,i
nte
ract
ion
among
dri
nki
ng
beh
avio
ran
dper
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing,
acco
unting
for
multis
tage
,m
ulti-cl
ust
ersa
mplin
gst
rate
gy.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erw
asin
dep
enden
tly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
mutu
alIP
Vfo
rm
en(O
R¼
1.6
1);
for
wom
en,
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erm
oder
ated
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
ndri
nki
ng
leve
lan
dm
utu
alIP
V,in
crea
sing
risk
under
conditio
ns
ofhig
hnei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�M
ove
sth
elit
erat
ure
forw
ard
on
the
rela
tionsh
ips
obse
rved
inpri
or
studie
sbet
wee
nal
coholu
sean
dIP
V.
�T
hes
eau
thors
sough
tto
unta
ngl
eth
ere
lationsh
ips
that
mig
ht
exis
tam
ong
each
par
tner
’sdri
nki
ng
pat
tern
s,so
cial
dis
org
aniz
atio
n,an
ddem
ogr
aphic
vari
able
s.Li
mitat
ions:
�M
easu
rem
ent
ofI
PV
isnot
spec
ific,
excl
udes
cert
ain
types
ofvi
ole
nce
,an
dis
bas
edon
report
sfr
om
one
par
tner
inea
chco
uple
.
(con
tinue
d)
15
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Akl
imunnes
sa,K
han
,K
abir
,an
dM
ori
,2007
Ban
glad
esh
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:Eve
r-m
arri
edm
en,
aged
14–54,(n¼
2823
wei
ghte
dan
d3165
un-w
eigh
ted)
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
sfr
om
the
2004
Ban
glad
esh
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
,se
xual
and
ove
rall
IPV
per
pet
ration
agai
nst
wife
inth
ela
stye
arC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,ed
uca
tion,num
ber
ofch
ildre
n,
relig
ion
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
anal
ysis
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
isco
nce
ived
asin
div
idual
resi
den
cebei
ng
urb
anve
rsus
rura
l.
Hig
hra
tes
ofphys
ical
(68%
),se
xual
(27%
),an
dove
rall
abuse
(72%
)re
port
ed.U
rban
resi
den
cew
asas
soci
ated
with
adec
reas
edlik
elih
ood
of
sexual
viole
nce
per
pet
ration
(OR¼
0.8
0,95%
CI:[
0.6
5,
0.9
9])
.Pla
ceofre
siden
cew
asnot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
viole
nce
or
ove
rall
dom
estic
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�La
rge
sam
ple
size
;�
Sett
ing
inB
angl
ades
h,w
her
eth
ere
hav
ebee
nfe
wst
udie
s.Li
mitat
ions:
�Im
plic
atio
ns
off
indin
gsfo
rth
ere
lationsh
ipbet
wee
npla
cean
dIP
Vis
not
dis
cuss
ed.
�Li
ttle
theo
retica
lgr
oundin
gfo
rth
eex
plo
ration
of
pla
ceis
incl
uded
.�
Pote
ntial
bia
sin
inte
rvie
win
gm
en,par
ticu
larl
yin
clusi
on
ofth
ose
no
longe
rm
arri
ed.H
ow
ever
,th
ehig
hra
tes
ofab
use
report
edm
ayin
dic
ate
less
bia
s.A
cker
son
etal
.,2008
India
Study
des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edIn
dia
nw
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
83,6
27).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e1998–1999
India
nN
atio
nal
Fam
ilyH
ealth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
or
inlif
etim
e(s
ince
age
15)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,a
geat
mar
riag
e,re
ligio
n,s
oci
alca
ste,
stan
dar
dofliv
ing,
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
loca
tion
of
nei
ghborh
ood
(urb
an/r
ura
l),w
om
an’s
educa
tion,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,ed
uca
tion
diff
eren
tial
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
mal
e/fe
mal
elit
erac
y
Anal
ytic
met
hod:T
hre
e-le
vel
multile
velm
odel
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits;
also
incl
udes
dis
tric
tsan
dst
ates
.
Odds
ofre
cent
IPV
among
wom
enw
ithout
educa
tion
wer
e5.6
1tim
es(C
I:3.5
3,
8.9
2)
those
ofco
llege
-ed
uca
ted
wom
en.O
R1.8
4fo
rw
ives
ofc
olle
ge-e
duca
ted
men
;O
R1.1
8(C
I:1.4
4,2.3
5)
for
wom
enw
ith
more
educa
tion
than
thei
rhusb
and
(CI:
1.0
5,
1.3
3).
Aft
erco
ntr
olli
ng
for
indiv
idual
fact
ors
,co
mm
unity
mal
ean
dfe
mal
elit
erac
yle
vels
wer
ein
vers
ely
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
(OR
s1.1
0to
1.1
4fo
rlo
wes
tte
rtile
nei
ghborh
oods)
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
dat
ase
t.�
Appro
pri
ate
use
ofm
ultile
velm
odel
ing
and
sound
choic
esofva
riab
les.
Lim
itat
ions:
�A
lthough
the
study
addre
sses
the
educa
tion
of
wom
enas
ari
skfa
ctor,
the
intr
oduct
ion
does
not
conta
inm
uch
mat
eria
lon
theo
ries
upon
whic
hhyp
oth
eses
are
bas
ed�T
he
Dis
cuss
ion
sect
ion
des
crib
esposs
ible
pat
hw
ays,
but
thes
ear
ere
lative
lyth
inco
mpar
edto
oth
erst
udie
san
dfo
cus
larg
ely
on
mat
eria
lin
tere
sts,
rath
erth
anth
ere
lative
role
ofw
om
enin
soci
ety.
�M
ore
ove
r,th
eydo
not
fully
addre
sshow
nei
ghborh
ood-lev
ellit
erac
yw
ork
sas
anel
emen
tofth
ispat
hw
ay.
�Def
initio
nofl
ifetim
eIP
Vas
‘‘sin
ceth
eag
eof1
5’’m
aylim
itre
port
s.A
cker
son
and
Subra
man
ian,2008
India
Study
des
ign:
Cro
ss-s
ectional
study
Popula
tion:M
arri
edIn
dia
nw
om
enag
es15–49
(n¼
83,6
27)
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
e1998-9
9In
dia
nN
atio
nal
Fam
ilyH
ealth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
or
inlif
etim
e(s
ince
age
15)
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,a
geat
mar
riag
e,re
ligio
n,s
oci
alca
ste,
stan
dar
dofliv
ing,
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
loca
tion
of
nei
ghborh
ood
(urb
an/r
ura
l),w
om
an’s
educa
tion,
husb
and’s
educa
tion,ed
uca
tion
diff
eren
tial
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
wea
lth,per
capita
stat
edom
estic
pro
duct
,st
ate
gender
equal
ity,
stat
ehum
andev
elopm
ent
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits.
Als
oin
cludes
stat
es.
Stat
e-le
velge
nder
equal
ity
inve
r-se
lyas
soci
ated
with
indiv
idual
likel
ihood
ofr
ecen
tIP
V(O
R¼
0.7
5).
Nei
ghborh
ood
wea
lth,
per
capita
stat
edom
estic
pro
duct
,an
dst
ate
hum
andev
elopm
ent
wer
enon-
sign
ifica
nt.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�The
only
pap
erto
explic
itly
exam
ine
gender
equal
ity
�St
rong
anal
ytic
alap
pro
ach
and
consi
der
atio
nof
thre
ehie
rarc
hic
alle
vels
ofin
fluen
ceLi
mitat
ions:
�T
he
geogr
aphic
alar
eafo
rw
hic
hge
nder
equal
ity
ism
easu
red
isth
est
ate,
not
asm
alle
rnei
ghborh
ood
or
com
munity
leve
lunit.
Stuev
ean
dO
’Donnel
l,2008
Bro
okl
yn,N
Y,
USA
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:A
fric
anA
mer
ican
and
Latina
wom
en,ag
ed19–20
(n¼
550).
Dat
aso
urc
e:th
eR
each
for
Hea
lth
Study
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
,se
xual
or
emotional
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration
Cova
riat
es:a
ge,e
duca
tion,p
aren
ting,
His
pan
ic,e
thnic
iden
tity
,dis
crim
inat
ion,ei
ght
grad
eri
skbeh
avio
rs(a
ggre
ssio
n,al
coholuse
,lif
etim
ese
x)
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
viole
nce
exper
ience
s
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Com
munity
viole
nce
exper
ience
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
emotional
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.2
6)
and
mar
ginal
ly,posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.1
3)
and
phys
ical
IPV
per
pet
ration
(OR
¼1.1
3).
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Id
entifie
slin
kage
bet
wee
nex
per
ience
sof
com
munity
viole
nce
and
indiv
idual
par
tner
viole
nce
.Li
mitat
ions:
�D
oes
not
use
am
ultile
velm
odel
ing
fram
ework
.
(con
tinue
d)
16
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Frye
etal
.,2008
New
York
City,
USA
(urb
an)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:al
lfe
mic
ides
from
1990–1999,ag
ed16
and
old
er(n¼
1,8
61).
Dat
aso
urc
es:au
topsy
report
s,cr
ime
scen
ean
dpolic
ere
port
s,an
dad
ditio
nal
docu
men
tsco
nta
inin
gdem
ogr
aphic
info
rmat
ion
Outc
om
e:in
tim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
e(a
sco
mpar
edto
oth
erty
pes
offe
mic
ide)
,cl
assi
fied
usi
ng
polic
ere
port
and
info
rmat
ion
on
vict
im-p
erpet
rato
rre
lationsh
ipC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,fo
reig
n-b
orn
,ra
ce/e
thnci
tyPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
educa
tional
/occ
upat
ional
atta
inm
ent,
imm
igra
nt
conce
ntr
atio
n/iso
lation,ex
tern
alphys
ical
dis
ord
er,in
tern
alphys
ical
dis
ord
er,so
cial
cohes
ion,per
capita
inco
me
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
model
ing;
com
par
edin
tim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
esto
oth
erfe
mic
ides
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
asth
e59
resi
den
tial
com
munity
dis
tric
tsdel
inea
ted
by
the
New
York
City
Offic
eof
City
Pla
nnin
g.
No
sign
ifica
nt
nei
ghborh
ood-lev
elef
fect
iden
tifie
d,w
hen
con-
trolli
ng
for
nei
ghborh
ood
leve
lper
capita
inco
me.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
he
first
study
toex
amin
enei
ghborh
ood
leve
lco
rrel
ates
with
intim
ate
par
tner
fem
icid
e(I
PF)
.Li
mitat
ions:
�C
om
par
ison
group
isoth
erfe
mic
ides
,so
does
not
des
crib
eth
ein
fluen
ceofn
eigh
borh
ood
conditio
ns
on
risk
ofIP
F,but
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nnei
ghborh
ood
conditio
ns
and
the
dis
trib
ution
of
types
offe
mic
ide,
incl
udin
gIP
F.
Nav
edan
dPer
sson,
2008
Ban
glad
esh
(one
urb
anan
done
rura
lre
gion)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:e
ver-
pre
gnan
tw
om
enag
ed15–49
(n¼
2,5
53)
Dat
aso
urc
e:a
popula
tion-b
ased
surv
eyas
soci
ated
with
the
WH
Om
ulti-co
untr
yst
udy
on
dom
estic
viole
nce
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
duri
ng
any
pre
gnan
cyC
ova
riat
es:ag
e,husb
and’s
educa
tion,w
het
her
wom
anea
rns
anin
com
e,sa
vings
/cre
dit
group
mem
ber
ship
,m
arri
age
invo
lvin
ga
dow
ry,in
-law
sliv
ein
house
hold
,rel
iance
on
nat
alfa
mily
’ssu
pport
ina
cris
is,sp
ousa
lco
mm
unic
atio
n,w
om
an’s
moth
erab
use
dby
her
fath
er,husb
and’s
moth
erab
use
dby
his
fath
er,in
com
e,M
usl
imPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:hig
hco
nce
rnab
out
leve
lof
crim
ein
the
com
munity
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
regr
essi
on
model
.N
eigh
borh
ood
def
ined
asm
ohol
las
inth
eurb
anre
gion
and
villa
ges
inth
eru
ralre
gion.
Nei
ghborh
ood
mea
sure
sw
ere
aggr
egat
esofin
div
idual
resp
onse
s.
Ahig
her
pro
port
ion
ofad
ults
inth
eco
mm
unity
who
worr
yab
out
crim
ein
thei
rco
mm
unity
isas
soci
ated
with
asl
ightly
incr
ease
dlik
elih
ood
of
spousa
lvi
ole
nce
duri
ng
pre
gnan
cy(O
R¼
1.0
9)
inth
eurb
anre
gion;no
asso
ciat
ion
was
found
inth
eru
ralre
gion.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
sco
mm
unity
leve
lin
fluen
ces
on
viole
nce
agai
nst
wom
enin
adev
elopin
gco
untr
yco
nte
xt.
Lim
itat
ions:
�C
onsi
der
sonly
one
com
munity
char
acte
rist
ic.
Ree
det
al.,
2009
Bost
on,U
SA(f
our
urb
anco
mm
unity
hea
lth
cente
rs)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:A
fric
anA
mer
ican
men
ages
18–65
who
report
edonly
fem
ale
par
tner
s(n¼
569).
Dat
aso
urc
e:su
rvey
edas
par
tof
the
Bla
ckan
dA
fric
anA
mer
ican
Men
’sH
ealth
Study
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
IPV
per
pet
ration
incu
rren
thet
erose
xual
rela
tionsh
ipC
ova
riat
e:ag
e(o
ther
cova
riat
esw
ere
explo
red
inuniv
aria
tean
alys
esbut
did
not
mee
tin
clusi
on
criter
iafo
rth
em
odel
)Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:per
ceiv
edfr
equen
cyof
viole
nce
innei
ghborh
ood,per
ceiv
ednee
dto
fight
tosu
rviv
ein
nei
ghborh
ood
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Aft
erad
just
ing
for
age,
per
ceiv
edfr
equen
cyofnei
ghborh
ood
viole
nce
as‘‘a
grea
tdea
l’’(O
R¼
3.1
)or
som
e/ve
rylit
tle
(OR
¼2.9
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
,as
com
par
edto
‘‘none.
’’A
gain
adju
stin
gfo
rag
e,per
ceiv
ednee
dto
fight
tosu
rviv
ein
nei
ghborh
ood
as‘‘a
grea
tdea
l’’(O
R¼
2.0
)or
‘‘som
e/ve
rylit
tle’
’(O
R¼
2.1
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
,as
com
par
edto
‘‘none.
’’In
additio
n,in
volv
emen
tin
stre
etvi
ole
nce
(OR¼
3.0
)an
dga
ngs
(OR¼
2.0
)w
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
likel
ihood
ofIP
Vper
pet
ration.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Id
entifie
slin
kage
bet
wee
nex
per
ience
sof
nei
ghborh
ood
viole
nce
and
gang
mem
ber
ship
and
indiv
idual
par
tner
viole
nce
among
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anm
en.
Lim
itat
ions:
�D
oes
not
use
am
ultile
velm
odel
ing
fram
ework
.
Cae
tano
etal
.,2010
USA
(48
contigu
ous
stat
es)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:m
arri
edor
cohab
itin
gco
uple
sin
the
48
contigu
ous
united
stat
es(n¼
1025)
couple
s).
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
edfa
ceto
face
aspar
tofa
random
pro
bab
ility
sam
ple
repre
senta
tive
ofm
arri
edan
dco
hab
itin
gco
uple
s
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
occ
urr
ence
duri
ng
pri
or
year
(mal
eto
fem
ale
and
fem
ale
tom
ale,
vict
imiz
atio
nan
dper
pet
ration)
Cova
riat
es:av
erag
ew
eekl
yal
coholco
nsu
mption,
bin
gedri
nki
ng,
race
,et
hnic
ity,
age,
inco
me
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
educa
tion,
unem
plo
ymen
t,w
ork
ing
clas
sco
mposi
tion;
aver
age
ofco
uple
sper
ceiv
edso
cial
cohes
ion
and
per
ceiv
edin
form
also
cial
contr
ol
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Pat
han
alys
is.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as2000
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct.
Nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty
was
sign
ifica
ntly
corr
elat
edw
ith
IPV
inunad
just
edan
alys
is,but
the
pat
hs
via
soci
alco
hes
ion
and
per
ceiv
edso
cial
contr
ol
wer
enon-s
ignifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�In
corp
ora
tes
the
notion
ofst
ress
aspar
tofth
epat
hw
aylin
king
nei
ghborh
oods
tooutc
om
es,an
din
corp
ora
tes
Sam
pso
n,R
auden
bush
,an
dEar
ls’s
(1997)co
nce
ptofs
oci
alco
ntr
ol/so
cial
cohes
ion
atth
eC
ensu
sT
ract
leve
l.�
Als
oin
corp
ora
tes
Gel
les’
(1985)
soci
al-s
truct
ura
lth
eory
,whic
hhas
pre
viousl
ybee
nap
plie
dto
child
mal
trea
tmen
tas
wel
l.Li
mitat
ions:
�Se
lect
ion
bia
sco
uld
affe
ctst
udy
findin
gsgi
ven
the
pro
port
ion
ofnonpar
tici
pat
ing,
elig
ible
couple
s.
(con
tinue
d)
17
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Cunra
di2009
USA
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:m
arri
ed/c
ohab
itin
gad
ults
age
18
year
san
dold
erw
ho
iden
tifie
das
His
pan
icD
ata
sourc
e:th
e2000
Nat
ional
House
hold
Surv
eyon
Dru
gA
buse
(n¼
2,5
47).
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nor
per
pet
ration
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,ed
uca
tion,em
plo
ymen
t,in
com
e,born
inU
S,su
rvey
langu
age
pre
fere
nce
,bin
gedri
nki
ng
inpas
tm
onth
,al
coholab
use
inpas
tye
arPre
dic
tor
ofin
tere
st:per
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing
acco
unting
for
multis
tage
,m
ulti-cl
ust
ersa
mplin
gst
rate
gy.
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
gh-
borh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
For
men
,nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erw
asas
soci
ated
with
incr
ease
dIP
Vper
pet
ration
(OR¼
1.5
5)
and
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.3
6);
for
wom
en,nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erw
asas
soci
ated
with
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n(O
R¼
1.3
4),
but
not
per
pet
ration.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�In
corp
ora
ted
aso
phis
tica
ted
and
wel
l-va
lidat
edm
easu
reofal
coholuse
that
consi
der
spas
t-ye
aruse
,pas
t-m
onth
bin
gedri
nki
ng,
and
num
ber
of
pas
t-ye
ardri
nki
ng
day
s(a
lthough
the
latt
eris
subje
ctto
reca
llbia
s).
�co
nsi
der
‘‘acc
ultura
tion’’
ofH
ispan
icim
mig
rants
Lim
itat
ions:
�ac
cultura
tion
ism
easu
red
only
by
nat
ivity
of
resp
onden
tan
dla
ngu
age
ofin
terv
iew
.R
aghav
anet
al.,
2009
Larg
epublic
univ
ersi
ty(u
rban
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:m
ale
under
grad
uat
est
uden
tsat
ala
rge,
public
,urb
anuniv
ersi
tyw
ith
apri
mar
ilylo
w-inco
me,
imm
i-gr
ant
or
ethnic
min
ori
tyst
u-
den
tbody
(n¼
479).
Dat
aso
urc
e:su
rvey
conduct
edin
acl
assr
oom
sett
ing
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
per
pet
ration
inpri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:ra
ce,et
hnic
ity,
mal
enet
work
viole
nce
,fe
mal
enet
work
vict
imiz
atio
nPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
viole
nce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:H
iera
rchic
allo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Com
munity
viole
nce
was
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
IPV
;m
ale
net
work
viole
nce
med
iate
dan
dm
oder
ated
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
nco
mm
unity
viole
nce
and
IPV
.A
ssoci
atio
ns
diff
ered
by
race
and
ethnic
ity.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Exam
ines
influ
ence
ofco
mm
unity
viole
nce
and
soci
alnet
work
viole
nce
on
mal
eper
pet
ration
of
IPV
.�
Stro
ng
theo
retica
lan
dco
nce
ptu
algr
oundin
g.Li
mitat
ions:
�St
udy
popula
tion
ism
ale
under
grad
uat
est
uden
ts,
limitin
gge
ner
aliz
abili
tyto
oth
erpopula
tions.
McK
inney
etal
.,2009
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:co
uple
sag
ed18
year
san
dold
erin
the
48
contigu
ous
US
stat
esin
1995
(n¼
1,5
97
couple
s).
Dat
aso
urc
e:fa
ce-t
o-f
ace,
nat
ional
,popula
tion-b
ased
surv
eyofco
uple
sag
ed
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
and
sexual
IPV
occ
urr
ence
inpri
or
year
(mal
eto
fem
ale
and
fem
ale
tom
ale
viole
nce
)bas
edon
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:m
ale
and
fem
ale
age,
educa
tion,
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
and
his
tory
ofill
icit
dru
guse
,co
uple
leve
let
hnic
ity,
inco
me,
and
mar
ital
stat
us
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty,
ow
ner
occ
upan
cy,hig
hsc
hoolgr
aduat
esco
llege
grad
uat
es,al
coholoutlet
den
sity
Anal
ytic
met
hod:R
egre
ssio
nm
odel
ing,
contr
olli
ng
for
clust
erin
gusi
ng
asu
rvey
sam
plin
gad
just
men
t.N
eigh
borh
ood
def
ined
as1990
US
ZIP
code.
Alc
oholo
utlet
den
sity
(OR¼
1.3
),pove
rty
(OR¼
1.3
)an
dow
ner
occ
upan
cy(1
.2)
wer
eas
soci
ated
with
anin
crea
sed
risk
ofm
ale
tofe
mal
epar
tner
viole
nce
;only
ow
ner
occ
upan
cy(O
R¼
1.3
)w
asas
soci
ated
with
incr
ease
dfe
mal
eto
mal
epar
tner
viole
nce
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�O
ne
offe
wst
udie
sto
exam
ine
alco
holoutlet
den
sity
ina
multile
velfr
amew
ork
.�
Als
oco
nsi
der
sm
ale
tofe
mal
ean
dfe
mal
eto
mal
eIP
V,as
wel
las
additio
nal
nei
ghborh
ood
leve
lfa
ctors
.Li
mitat
ions:
�D
iscu
ssio
nofth
eore
tica
lm
otiva
tion
islim
ited
.
Boyl
eet
al.,
2009
India
Des
ign:C
ross
sect
ional
study
Popula
tion:w
om
enag
ed15–49
who
wer
eusu
alre
siden
tsin
the
house
hold
,m
arri
ed,an
dliv
ing
with
thei
rsp
ouse
Dat
aso
urc
e:N
atio
nal
Fam
ilyH
ealth
Surv
ey,1998–1999,
(n¼
68,4
66).
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:w
om
an’s
age,
fam
ilyst
ruct
ure
,num
ber
of
child
ren,w
ork
ing
outs
ide
the
hom
e,ex
posu
reto
phys
ical
mis
trea
tmen
toth
erth
anIP
Vsi
nce
age
15,
educa
tion,a
ccep
tance
ofm
istr
eatm
ent,
and
fam
ilyst
ruct
ure
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
leve
lw
om
en’s
educa
tion,house
hold
stan
dar
dofliv
ing,
attitu
des
acce
pta
nt
ofpar
tner
mis
trea
tmen
t,urb
anre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits.
Als
oin
cludes
stat
e.
Acc
epta
nce
ofm
istr
eatm
ent
(OR
¼1.1
9)
and
urb
anre
siden
ce(O
R¼
1.1
7)
atth
eco
mm
unity
leve
lare
sign
ifica
ntly,
posi
tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nw
hen
contr
olli
ng
for
allav
aila
ble
cova
riat
es.
Com
munity-
leve
lw
om
en’s
educa
tion
issi
gnifi
cantly,
neg
a-tive
lyas
soci
ated
with
IPV
when
contr
olli
ng
only
for
com
munity-
leve
lacc
epta
nce
of
mis
trea
tmen
tan
din
div
idual
educa
tion
and
mis
trea
tmen
t,but
isre
nder
ednon-s
ignifi
cant
by
the
incl
usi
on
ofad
ditio
nal
cova
riat
es.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
hes
eau
thors
wen
tfa
rther
than
oth
ers
todel
inea
teth
eth
eory
about
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
nw
om
en’s
educa
tion
and
IPV
.They
note
that
hig
her
educa
tion
isas
soci
ated
with
more
liber
also
ciet
alnorm
s,in
cludin
gge
nder
equal
ity.
Lim
itat
ions:
�M
easu
rem
ent
ofIP
Vis
very
gener
alan
dno
info
rmat
ion
isav
aila
ble
toch
arac
teri
zeth
ere
liabili
tyan
dva
lidity
ofth
em
easu
res
use
d.
Obas
aju,Pal
in,Ja
cobs,
Ander
son,an
dK
aslo
w,2009
Auniv
ersi
ty-a
ffili
ated
public
hosp
ital
inth
eU
nited
Stat
es
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:A
fric
anA
mer
ican
wom
enw
ho
report
edcl
inic
alle
vels
ofab
use
duri
ng
child
hood
(n¼
98).
Dat
aso
urc
e:a
study
ofIP
Van
dch
ildad
just
men
tw
ithin
152
Afr
ican
Am
eric
anfa
mili
es
Outc
om
e:phys
ical
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
,usi
ng
the
Index
ofSp
ousa
lA
buse
Cova
riat
es:ch
ildhood
abuse
(em
otional
,phys
ical
or
sexual
)Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:co
mm
unity
cohes
ion,
per
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er(c
onsi
der
edas
moder
ators
)
Anal
ytic
met
hod:H
iera
rchic
al,
bin
ary
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
anal
ysis
.N
eigh
borh
ood
def
ined
by
indiv
idual
self-
report
ofnei
gh-
borh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics.
Dec
reas
edle
vels
ofco
mm
unity
cohes
ion
and
incr
ease
dle
vels
ofper
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erw
ere
asso
ciat
edw
ith
incr
ease
dlik
elih
ood
ofad
ult
phys
ical
IPV
.C
om
munity
cohes
ion
and
per
ceiv
ednei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
erm
oder
ate
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
nch
ildhood
emotional
abuse
and
adult
phys
ical
IPV
,w
ith
the
rela
tionsh
ipdep
enden
ton
leve
lsofboth
child
emotional
abuse
and
com
munity
cohes
ion
or
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Exam
ines
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
nnei
ghborh
ood
fact
ors
and
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n,as
rela
ted
toch
ildhood
abuse
.�
The
rela
tionsh
ips
bet
wee
nle
vels
ofch
ildab
use
and
leve
lsofboth
com
munity
cohes
ion
and
nei
ghborh
ood
dis
ord
er—
asth
eyin
fluen
cead
ult
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
n—
are
close
lyex
amin
ed.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Fe
wco
vari
ates
are
consi
der
ed.
(con
tinue
d)
18
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Liet
al.,
2010
Jeffer
son
County
,A
labam
a,U
SA(u
rban
)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:pre
gnan
tw
om
enag
es14þ
atte
ndin
gpre
nat
alca
recl
inic
s(n¼
2,8
87).
Dat
aso
urc
e:Per
inat
alEm
phas
isR
esea
rch
Cen
ter
(PER
C2)
pro
ject
Outc
om
es:m
ale
par
tner
-per
pet
rate
dphys
ical
vio-
lence
duri
ng
pre
gnan
cy,phys
ical
or
sexual
IPV
inpri
or
year
,fro
mA
buse
Ass
essm
ent
Scre
enin
gto
ol
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,ag
eat
first
vagi
nal
inte
rcours
e,ed
uca
tion,M
aste
ry,no
pay
ing
job,use
ofal
cohol,
Afr
ican
Am
eric
an,p
erfo
rmed
most
ofh
ouse
work
,unm
arri
ed,use
ofw
elfa
rePre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,re
siden
tial
stab
ility
,nei
ghborh
ood
viole
nt
crim
e
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
logi
stic
regr
essi
on
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
isdef
ined
as2000
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct.
Res
iden
tial
stab
ility
was
sign
ifica
ntly
asso
ciat
edw
ith
incr
ease
dIP
Vri
sk(O
R¼
4.2
9).
Conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
gein
dex
and
viole
nt
crim
ew
ere
non-s
ignifi
cant.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�C
onsi
der
snei
ghborh
ood
influ
ence
son
viole
nce
agai
nst
wom
enduri
ng
pre
gnan
cy.
�C
onsi
der
snum
erous
cova
riat
es,in
cludin
gge
nder
empow
erm
ent
and
role
vari
able
s.�
Som
eco
nsi
der
atio
nofth
eory
.Li
mitat
ions:
�Sa
mple
isdra
wn
from
wom
enat
tendin
gcl
inic
sofa
county
dep
artm
ent
ofhea
lth,w
hic
hm
aylim
itge
ner
aliz
abili
ty.
Uth
man
etal
.,2011
Nig
eria
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:cu
rren
tly
mar
ried
or
cohab
itin
gw
om
enag
es20-4
4(n¼
8731).
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
edas
par
tofth
eN
iger
ian
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey2008
Outc
om
e:lif
etim
ephys
ical
,se
xual
or
emotional
IPV
,usi
ng
ave
rsio
nofth
eC
onfli
ctT
actics
scal
e.C
ova
riat
es:w
itnes
sed
phys
ical
viole
nce
inch
ildhood,
tole
rance
ofIP
VPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:c
om
munity
leve
lpro
port
ion
of
wom
ento
lera
nt
ofIP
V,co
mm
unity
leve
lpro
port
ion
ofm
ento
lera
nt
ofIP
V,co
mm
unity
leve
lpro
port
ion
ofre
sponden
tsth
atw
itnes
sed
phys
ical
viole
nce
inch
ildhood
Anal
ytic
met
hod:M
ultile
vel
stru
ctura
leq
uat
ion
model
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
aspri
mar
ysa
mplin
gunits.
Ahig
her
pro
port
ion
ofw
om
enin
the
com
munity
with
attitu
des
tole
rant
ofIP
Vw
asas
soci
ated
with
sexual
and
emotional
abuse
,but
not
phys
ical
abuse
,w
hile
ahig
her
pro
port
ion
of
men
with
tole
rant
attitu
des
was
asso
ciat
edw
ith
phys
ical
abuse
,but
not
emotional
or
sexual
abuse
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�Fi
rst
study
toex
amin
enei
ghborh
ood
influ
ence
sin
Afr
ica.
�U
ses
am
ultile
velst
ruct
ura
leq
uat
ion
model
.�
Bas
edon
aco
nce
ptu
alm
odel
with
spec
ific
hyp
oth
eses
tobe
test
ed.
�C
onsi
der
spote
ntial
med
iation.
Lim
itat
ions:
�Exam
ines
com
munity
leve
lat
titu
des
,but
does
not
take
into
acco
untoth
erco
mm
unity
leve
lvar
iable
s,su
chas
soci
oec
onom
icdis
adva
nta
ge.
Em
ery
etal
.,2011
Chic
ago,U
SAD
esig
n:Lo
ngi
tudin
alst
udy
Popula
tion:pri
mar
yca
regi
vers
of
child
ren
inC
hic
ago,pri
mar
ilyw
om
en(n¼
599).
Dat
aso
urc
e:Pro
ject
on
Hum
anD
evel
opm
ent
inC
hic
ago
Nei
ghborh
oods
Longi
tudin
alsu
rvey
Outc
om
e:des
ista
nce
from
phys
ical
IPV
,m
easu
red
usi
ng
item
sfr
om
the
CT
SC
ova
riat
es:r
esponden
t’s
race
and
educa
tion,n
um
ber
ofch
ildre
nan
dty
pe
ofIP
Vin
itia
llyre
port
ed.
Gro
up
1:cr
ied/w
asupse
tin
front
ofth
ech
ildin
the
pas
tw
eek,
tota
lper
sonal
inco
me,
tota
lhouse
hold
inco
me,
adult
fam
ilym
ember
thre
aten
edto
hit
child
,w
orr
ies
about
not
hav
ing
enough
money
,num
ber
oftim
esin
last
year
got
info
rmat
ion
tobac
kup
his
/her
posi
tion
duri
ng
anar
gum
ent
with
par
tner
,ch
ild’s
fath
er’s
educa
tion,ca
naf
ford
tobuy
more
or
less
than
last
year
,num
ber
ofye
ars
resi
ded
atcu
rren
tad
dre
ss,ag
eofch
ild’s
fath
er.
Gro
up
2:A
dult
stom
pout
ofro
om
ifco
nfli
ctw
ith
child
inth
epas
tye
ar,dis
tance
from
hom
eto
job,
ever
saw
som
eone
shot
at,r
educe
dpri
cem
eals
atsc
hoolt
his
year
,eve
rhad
hea
t/el
ectr
icity
cutoff
inla
st6
month
s,re
sponden
ton
public
assi
stan
cela
stta
xye
arPre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
lega
lcy
nic
ism
,nei
ghborh
ood
conce
ntr
ated
dis
adva
nta
ge,
nei
ghborh
ood
ethnic
het
eroge
nei
ty,
nei
ghborh
ood
resi
den
tial
inst
abili
ty,
nei
ghborh
ood
colle
ctiv
eef
ficac
y
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
model
corr
ecting
for
clust
erin
gw
ithin
nei
ghborh
oods.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
by
Chic
ago
nei
ghborh
ood
boundar
ies,
whic
har
eco
nst
ruct
edof1
990
US
Cen
sus
Tra
cts.
Som
enei
ghborh
ood
mea
sure
sar
edef
ined
asav
erag
edre
sponse
sfr
om
the
PH
DC
Nco
mm
unity
surv
ey.
Par
tici
pan
tsliv
ing
innei
ghborh
oods
hig
hin
lega
lcy
nic
ism
had
low
erodds
of
report
ing
IPV
des
ista
nce
(OR¼
0.2
4);
oth
ernei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics
wer
enot
asso
ciat
edw
ith
IPV
des
ista
nce
.Se
par
ate
model
sac
count
for
two
groups
of
cova
riat
es(s
how
nin
vari
able
sco
lum
n),
and
did
not
affe
ctco
ncl
usi
ons
rega
rdin
gnei
ghborh
ood
pre
dic
tors
.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�T
his
isth
efir
stst
udy
toin
vest
igat
eth
ere
lationsh
ipbet
wee
nnei
ghborh
ood
char
acte
rist
ics
and
IPV
des
ista
nce
.T
hey
emphas
ize
that
des
ista
nce
isone
import
ant
way
tore
duce
the
burd
enofIP
V.
�T
he
incl
usi
on
ofn
eigh
borh
ood
leve
lleg
alcy
nic
ism
isin
nova
tive
and
could
hav
eim
port
ant
polic
yim
plic
atio
ns.
Lim
itat
ions:
�D
ata
was
ove
rte
nye
ars
old
when
anal
yzed
for
this
pap
er.
Abey
a,A
few
ork
,an
dY
alew
,2011
Eas
tW
olle
gaZ
one,
Wes
tern
Eth
iopia
(urb
anan
dru
ral)
Des
ign:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:ev
er-m
arri
ed/
cohab
ited
wom
enag
ed15–49
year
s(n¼
1,5
40).
Dat
aso
urc
e:cr
oss
-sec
tional
,popula
tion
bas
edhouse
hold
surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
,se
xual
or
psy
cholo
gica
lIP
Vvi
ctim
izat
ion
inpri
or
year
or
lifet
ime,
usi
ng
modifi
edC
TS
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,re
lationsh
ipw
ith
par
tner
,ed
uca
tion
leve
l,occ
upat
ion,par
tner
’sed
uca
tion,diff
eren
cein
educa
tion
bet
wee
npar
tner
s,par
tner
’socc
upat
ion,par
tner
’sag
e,w
ealth
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
anal
ysis
.D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
isco
nce
ived
asin
div
idual
resi
den
cebei
ng
urb
anve
rsus
rura
l
Rura
lre
siden
tshad
dec
reas
edlik
elih
ood
ofex
per
ienci
ng
lifet
ime
IPV
(AO
R0.5
8,9
5%
CI
0.3
4,0.9
8),
but
the
asso
ciat
ion
bet
wee
nurb
anic
ity
and
IPV
was
not
sign
ifica
nt
for
IPV
inth
ela
st12
month
s.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�O
ne
ofv
ery
few
studie
sto
consi
der
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
npla
cean
dIP
Vin
Afr
ica.
Lim
itat
ions:
�The
consi
der
atio
nofp
lace
islim
ited
by
the
anal
ytic
alap
pro
ach,w
hic
hco
nce
ives
ofp
lace
asan
indiv
idual
char
acte
rist
icin
stea
dofa
conte
xtu
alef
fect
.�
Consi
der
atio
nofad
ditio
nal
pla
cech
arac
teri
stic
sis
reco
mm
ended
for
futu
rew
ork
(con
tinue
d)
19
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Tab
le1.
(continued
)
Citat
ion/
sett
ing
Study
Des
ign/D
ata
Sourc
e(s)
Var
iable
sA
nal
ytic
alA
ppro
ach
Res
ults/
Concl
usi
ons
Stre
ngt
hs
and
Lim
itat
ions
Anta
i,2011
Nig
eria
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:w
om
enag
es15–49
(n¼
19,2
16).
Dat
aso
urc
e:in
terv
iew
edas
par
tofth
e2008
Nig
eria
Dem
ogr
aphic
and
Hea
lth
Surv
ey
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
,usi
ng
modifi
edC
TS
Cova
riat
es:co
ntr
olli
ng
beh
avio
r,w
om
en’s
age,
wom
en’s
educa
tion,w
om
en’s
occ
upat
ion,
par
tner
’socc
upat
ion
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:urb
anve
rsus
rura
lre
siden
ce
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
anal
ysis
(uncl
ear
whet
her
surv
eysa
mplin
gst
ruct
ure
was
contr
olle
din
anal
ysis
).D
efin
itio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
isco
nce
ived
asin
div
idual
resi
den
cebei
ng
urb
anve
rsus
rura
l
Rura
lre
siden
cew
asas
soci
ated
with
anin
crea
sed
likel
ihood
of
exper
ienci
ng
IPV
(OR¼
1.2
8,
95%
CI¼
[1.0
6,1.5
6])
.N
ore
lationsh
ipbet
wee
nru
ralit
yan
dse
xual
IPV
was
found.
Stre
ngt
hs:
�In
terp
reta
tion
ofin
crea
sed
risk
inru
ralar
eas
incl
udes
dis
cuss
ion
ofge
nder
role
s,pove
rty,
and
geogr
aphic
and
soci
alis
ola
tion.
Lim
itat
ions:
�W
hile
one
offe
wst
udie
sto
consi
der
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
npla
cean
dIP
Vin
Afr
ica,
the
consi
der
atio
nofpla
ceis
limited
by
the
anal
ytic
alap
pro
ach,w
hic
hco
nce
ives
ofp
lace
asan
indiv
idual
char
acte
rist
icin
stea
dofa
conte
xtu
alef
fect
Wal
ler
etal
.,2011
USA
(nat
ional
)D
esig
n:C
ross
-sec
tional
study
Popula
tion:in
div
idual
sag
e18–26
year
sold
(n¼
14,3
22)
Dat
aso
urc
e:W
ave
IIIofth
eN
atio
nal
Longi
tudin
alSt
udy
of
Adole
scen
tH
ealth,2
001-2
002
Outc
om
es:phys
ical
or
sexual
IPV
vict
imiz
atio
nin
pri
or
year
Cova
riat
es:ag
e,ra
ce/e
thnic
ity,
mar
ital
stat
us,
child
hood
neg
lect
,phys
ical
abuse
,an
dse
xual
abuse
,an
dal
coholuse
Pre
dic
tors
ofin
tere
st:nei
ghborh
ood
alco
holoutlet
den
sity
,nei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty,
tran
sien
ce,
pro
port
ion
fore
ign
born
,and
pro
port
ion
ofv
acan
thousi
ng
units
Anal
ytic
met
hod:Lo
gist
icre
gres
sion
and
stru
ctura
leq
uat
ion
model
ing.
Def
initio
ns:
Nei
ghborh
ood
def
ined
as2000
US
Cen
sus
Tra
ct
Alc
oholoutlet
den
sity
was
not
asi
gnifi
cant
pre
dic
tor
ofIP
Vvi
ctim
izat
ion.N
eigh
borh
ood
tran
sien
cew
asas
soci
ated
with
adec
reas
edlik
elih
ood
of
phys
ical
IPV
,an
dnei
ghborh
ood
pove
rty
was
asso
ciat
edw
ith
anin
crea
sed
likel
ihood
ofse
xual
only
or
phys
ical
and
sexual
IPV
Stre
ngt
hs:
�St
rong
conce
ptu
alfo
undat
ion.
�C
onsi
der
snum
erous
pre
dic
tors
and
cova
riat
es.
�O
ne
offe
wst
udie
sco
nsi
der
ing
the
rela
tionsh
ipbet
wee
nth
ephys
ical
avai
labili
tyofa
lcohola
nd
IPV
risk
.Li
mitat
ions:
�C
o-o
ccurr
ence
ofIP
Van
dal
coholuse
was
not
asse
ssed
Not
e.A
OR¼
adju
sted
odds
ratio;C
I,co
nfid
ence
inte
rval
;IP
V¼
intim
ate
par
tner
viole
nce
;M
LM¼
multile
velm
arke
ting;
ns¼
not
sign
ifica
nt;
OR¼
odds
ratio;R
R¼
risk
ratio.
20
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
on particular U.S. municipalities. Some recent work has begun
to explore the relationship between neighborhood/community
conditions and IPV occurrence in the context of developing
countries, with a significantly more pronounced focus on the
importance of social norms. Of those non-U.S. studies, 4
(11%) were set in India, 4 (11%) in Bangladesh, 2 (6%) in
Nigeria, and 1 was set in each of the following countries:
Canada, Columbia, Ethiopia, and Peru. Of the 11 subnational
U.S. studies, 9 focused decidedly on urban areas (e.g., Chicago,
New York), and none focused specifically on rural areas. Nota-
bly, no studies identified were set in Europe, the Middle East,
Australia, or China, although it is possible that some publica-
tions could have been missed in the search if they were not pub-
lished in English or in a peer-reviewed journal.
Study Design, Populations, and Data Sources
All studies reviewed here are cross-sectional in nature and can
only quantify associations, not causality, between variables. A
small number of studies made use of data sets with longitudinal
components (Benson, Fox, DeMaris, & van Wyk, 2003;
DeMaris, Benson, Fox, Hill, & Van Wyk, 2003; Van Wyk,
Benson, Fox, & DeMaris, 2003). Populations include men,
women, pregnant women, and couples. Many studies relied
on large, existing databases, including population-based sur-
veys, police records, temporary aid to needy families (TANF),
or existing research study databases.
Outcomes and Covariates
Most studies used a measure of physical IPV as an outcome,
with the vast majority using a version or adaptation of the
Conflict Tactics Scale. In addition, 13 studies examined sexual
violence and only three examined psychological/emotional
violence. The larger focus was on male to female violence,
although several studies considered mutual IPV or both male
to female and female to male IPV. IPV occurrence was mea-
sured primarily as self-reported victimization and secondarily
as self-reported perpetration. The covariates included a range
of sociodemographic variables often considered, such as race,
ethnicity, education, income, and marital status. In addition, a
wide range of additional variables were considered, including
measures of social support, partner use of drugs or alcohol, and
the presence of young children. In several instances, interesting
and not often considered variables such as ‘‘jealousy as a
source of conflict, subjective financial satisfaction, and interge-
nerational exposure to violence’’ were included. Overall, the
studies reviewed exhibited wide variability in factors examined
and controlled.
Neighborhood Predictors
Neighborhood predictors of interest examined in the studies
reviewed can be divided into several categories, as shown in
Table 2. Many studies have examined basic socioeconomic
or demographic information at the neighborhood level and
have been dependent on censuses or large population surveys
for determination of these area-level variables. The U.S. Cen-
sus indicators include unemployment, working class employ-
ment, undereducation, poverty, single-parent families, non-
White race, and reliance upon public assistance (see Table 2).
Outside of the United States, basic measures of human and
economic development (e.g., income and education) have also
been used (Ackerson, Kawachi, Barbeau, & Subramanian,
2008; Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008; Koenig, Ahmed,
Stephenson, Jejeebhoy, & Campbell, 2006).
Informed by social disorganization theory, measures of con-
centrated disadvantage and residential mobility, derived from
Census data, have been used on numerous occasions. A number
of researchers have used factor analysis or principal components
analysis to construct indices of deprivation using Census data,
which are then used to estimate neighborhood-level disadvan-
tage. A smaller number of studies, particularly those using sur-
veys and subnational study areas, have attempted to directly
measure social disorganization theory constructs such as collec-
tive efficacy (Browning, 2002; Dekeseredy, Schwartz, Alvi, &
Tomaszewski, 2003), social cohesion (Frye et al., 2008), nonin-
tervention norms (Browning, 2002), and social or physical disor-
der (Cunradi, 2007, 2009; Dekeseredy et al., 2003; Frye et al.,
2008; Raghavan, Mennerich, Sexton, & James, 2006).
Some have used police or other crime data to quantify levels
of community violence (Koenig et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010),
and others have measured perceived levels of violence or per-
sonal exposure (Dekeseredy et al., 2003; Raghavan et al., 2006;
Reed et al., 2009; Stueve & O’Donnell, 2008). A small number
of studies have directly measured the level of IPV, either by
asking about self-reported violence, including IPV, in a per-
son’s social network (Raghavan et al., 2006; Raghavan, Rajah,
Figure 3. Increase in number of peer-reviewed articles modelingeffects of neighborhood environment on intimate partner violencewhile controlling for individual characteristics, (1995 through February11, 2012; n ¼ 36).
Beyer et al. 21
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Table 2. Associations Between Neighborhood Environment and Intimate Partner Violence Risk, Organized by Domains.
Construct Measured Single-Level ModelsMultilevel Models/ModelsAccounting for Clustering
Demographic and socioeconomic neighborhood compositionHigher area unemployment rate 1 significant, positive association (O’Campo et al.,
2005)Lower area level per capita, ormedian family or household income
1 significant, positive association (using Coxregression model) (Mears et al., 2001)
1 significant, positive association (O’Campo et al.,2005)
Lower owner occupancy 2 significant, negative associations (McKinneyet al., 2009); No association (O’Campo et al.,2005)
Higher proportion of single femaleheaded households with children
1 significant, positive association (Lauritsen &Schaum, 2004)
Higher proportion of householdswith children age 18 or younger
1 significant, positive association (Lauritsen &Schaum, 2004)
Lower neighborhood wealth(standard of living)
No association (Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008)
Higher proportion Black residents No association (Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004)Lower educational/occupationalattainment
No association with IPF, when compared to otherfemicides (Frye et al., 2008)
Higher immigrant or foreign-bornconcentration
No association found (Browning, 2002; Walleret al., 2011); No association with IPF, whencompared to other femicides (Frye et al., 2008)
Higher proportion of vacanthousing
No association (Waller et al., 2011)
Human and economic developmentLower community economic index(derived from presence of seventypes of institutions inneighborhood)
No association (Koenig et al., 2006)
Lower percentage of communityhouseholds with electricity
No association (Koenig et al., 2006)
Lower state-level GDP No association (Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008)Lower state-level humandevelopment
No association (Ackerson et al., 2008)
Lower neighborhood male literacy 1 significant, positive association (Ackerson et al.,2008)
Social disorganization theoryHigher level of concentratedpoverty/disadvantage
2 significant, positive association (Benson et al.,2003; DeMaris et al., 2003); 1 significant,positive association when race is not included(Van Wyk et al., 2003); 1 significant positiveassociation that reduces the OR for race(Benson et al., 2004); 1 significant, negativeassociation (Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004); noassociation (DeMaris et al., 2003)
2 significant, positive associations (McKinneyet al., 2009; Waller et al., 2011); 1 significant,positive association (only black couples formale to female violence)(Cunradi et al., 2000);no association found (Browning, 2002; Emeryet al., 2011; Koenig et al., 2006; Li et al., 2010);for White and Hispanic couples male to femaleand four all races female to male, no associationfound (Cunradi, et al., 2000; Waller et al.,2011); no differential association for IPF ascompared to other femicides (Frye et al., 2008)
Higher level of residential mobility/instability
1 significant, negative association (Benson et al.,2003)
2 significant, negative associations (Li et al., 2010;Waller et al., 2011); No association found(Browning, 2002; Emery et al., 2011; Walleret al., 2011)
Lower level of collective efficacy 1 significant, positive association (Dekeseredy,Schwartz, Alvi, & Tomaszewski, 2003)
1 significant, positive association (Browning,2002); no association (Emery et al., 2011)
Stronger norms supportingnonintervention
1 significant, positive association (Browning, 2002)
Lower level of social cohesion/social control
1 significant, positive association (Obasaju et al.,2009); No association with IPF, whencompared to other femicides (Frye et al., 2008);no mediating effect for relationship betweenneighborhood disadvantage and IPV (Caetanoet al., 2010)
(continued)
22 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Table 2. (continued)
Construct Measured Single-Level ModelsMultilevel Models/ModelsAccounting for Clustering
Higher perceived neighborhooddisorder
No association (Dekeseredy et al., 2003;Raghavan et al., 2006)
5 significant, positive associations (Cunradi, 2007,2009; Obasaju et al., 2009); No association(Cunradi, 2009); significant, positive interactionwith drinking level (Cunradi, 2007)
Higher external physical disorder No association with IPF, when compared to otherfemicides (Frye et al., 2008)
Higher internal physical disorder No association with IPF, when compared to otherfemicides (Frye et al., 2008)
Higher ethnic heterogeneity No association (Emery et al., 2011)Higher legal cynicism 1 significant, positive association (Emery et al.,
2011)Community violence
Higher community murder/crimerate
2 significant, positive associations (physical andsexual violence) (Koenig et al., 2006); Noassociation (Li et al., 2010)
Higher perceived frequency ofneighborhood violence
1 significant, positive association (Reed et al.,2009); no association (Dekeseredy et al., 2003)
Higher perceived need to fight tosurvive in neighborhood
1 significant, positive association (Reed et al.,2009)
Higher level of experience/exposure with/to communityviolence
2 significant, positive associations (Raghavan et al.,2006; Stueve & O’Donnell, 2008); 2 marginallysignificant associations (Stueve & O’Donnell,2008); no association (Stueve & O’Donnell,2008)
1 significant, positive association (Raghavan et al.,2009)
Higher perceived neighborhooddrug problems
No association (Dekeseredy et al., 2003)
Higher level of worry about crime incommunity
1 significant, positive association (only in urbanregion) (Naved & Persson, 2008); Noassociation (Naved & Persson, 2005); noassociation (in rural region)(Naved & Persson,2008)
Prevalence/acceptance of IPVMore prevalent community wife-beating or coerced sex norms/reports
7 significant, positive associations (2 are for PSUand district level effects in Koenig et al. study, 3are from Uthman et al. study) (Michael A.Koenig et al., 2006; McQuestion, 2003; Uthmanet al., 2011); no association (Uthman et al.,2011)
Higher level of social networkviolence
2 significant, positive associations (Raghavan et al.,2006, 2009)
Women’s empowermentLower proportion of communitywomen in savings/credit groups
1 significant, positive association (Jessore area)(Koenig et al., 2003); No association (Sirajgonjarea) (Koenig, et al., 2003)
Lower level of women’s autonomy 1 significant, positive association (Jessore area)(Koenig et al., 2003); No association (Sirajgonjarea) (Koenig et al., 2003)
Lower community/neighborhoodfemale education/literacy
1 significant, positive association (Ackerson et al.,2008); 1 significant, positive association whenonly minimal covariates considered and noassociation when fully adjusted (Boyle et al.,2009); no association (Koenig et al., 2003,2006)
Stronger gender norms supportingwomen’s subservience to men
No association (Koenig et al., 2006; Naved &Persson, 2005)
Lower level of gender equality 1 significant, positive association (Ackerson &Subramanian, 2008)
(continued)
Beyer et al. 23
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Gentile, Collado, & Kavanagh, 2009) or by measuring commu-
nity prevalence of violence or attitudes supporting violent
behavior (Koenig et al., 2006; McQuestion, 2003).
Primarily outside of the United States, measures of women’s
empowerment have been explored, including proportion of
women in savings/credit groups (Koenig, Ahmed, Hossain, &
Khorshed Alam Mozumder, 2003), women’s autonomy (Koe-
nig et al., 2003), female education and literacy (Ackerson
et al., 2008; Boyle, Georgiades, Cullen, & Racine, 2009; Koe-
nig et al., 2003, 2006), gender norms (Koenig et al., 2006), and
gender equality (Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008); interest-
ingly, measures of women’s empowerment at the neighbor-
hood level have not been used frequently in studies in the
United States. Three final categories have received surprisingly
little attention: the differences between urban and rural areas
(Flake, 2005; Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004), regional differences
within study areas (Flake, 2005; Koenig et al., 2003), and the
density of particular structures that might indicate other risky
behavior, such as drug markets or alcohol outlets (McKinney,
Caetano, Harris, & Ebama, 2009).
Neighborhood Definitions
Studies reviewed here used both geographical definitions of
neighborhoods or communities, as well as individually
reported neighborhood characteristics. Issues associated with
neighborhood definition have been acknowledged and dis-
cussed in the literature (Flowerdew, Manley, & Sabel, 2008).
Most U.S.-based analyses that defined geographic neighbor-
hoods used the Census Tract as a proxy for neighborhood
(n ¼ 11). Other U.S. neighborhood definitions included city-
defined neighborhoods (n ¼ 2), ZIP codes (n ¼ 1) and census
blocks (n¼ 1). Surprisingly, despite the fact that Census Block
Groups are smaller units than Census Tracts, for which socio-
economic information is available, no studies reviewed here
used the U.S. Census Block Group. Overall, eight studies used
individual reports of neighborhood characteristics, and three
were defined only by participants’ selection of urban versus
rural residence. One study, based in Peru, focused on larger
regions of residence within the country. Often, studies relying
on survey data used the primary sampling units associated with
the survey (n¼ 7), which were typically described as being rel-
atively small areas. Two articles by the same author defined
one urban and one rural region in Bangladesh and defined
‘‘neighborhoods’’ differently for each region, focusing on
mohallas (a community within a village or town) in the urban
region and villages in the rural region (Naved & Persson, 2005,
2008).
Analytic Approaches
Slightly over half of the articles reviewed accounted for ecologi-
cal levels in the analytical approach, using multilevel modeling
(15, 42%) or adjusting for clustering using survey weights (4,
11%), often with 2–4 levels, to facilitate examination of variance
at multiple levels of influence. These approaches allowed
researchers to adjust for clustering of individuals within neighbor-
hoods and to address the problem of confounding compositional
effects (i.e., everyone in the neighborhood is poor, so their com-
bined risk is higher) with contextual effects (i.e., above and
beyond being individually poor, neighborhood poverty affects
risk). Many other researchers, due to data structures and other
considerations, have used standard logistic regression modeling
(13, 36%). One article modeled time to revictimization using sur-
vival analysis (Mears, Carlson, Holden, & Harris, 2001), one used
path analysis (Caetano, Ramisetty-Mikler, & Harris, 2010), and
two very recent articles made use of structural equation modeling
(Uthman, Moradi, & Lawoko, 2011; Waller et al., 2012).
Findings
Main findings from our review are displayed in Table 2 that
summarizes the results of studies of neighborhood environment
and IPV by construct examined, grouped into domains of influ-
ence. Our analysis found that, of the 36 studies examined, 30
Table 2. (continued)
Construct Measured Single-Level ModelsMultilevel Models/ModelsAccounting for Clustering
Urbanicity/rurality and regionalizationIncreasing rurality/decreasingurbanicity
3 significant, positive associations (Aklimunnessa,Khan, Kabir, & Mori, 2007; Antai, 2011; Flake,2005); 1 significant negative association (Abeyaet al., 2011); no association (Aklimunnessaet al., 2007; Antai, 2011; Lauritsen & Schaum,2004)
Regional differences 2 significant differences (Flake, 2005; Koenig et al.,2003)
Alcohol outlet densityHigher alcohol outlet density 1 significant, positive association (McKinney et al.,
2009); no association (Waller et al., 2011)
Note. GDP ¼ gross domestic product; IPV ¼ intimate partner violence; OR ¼ odds ratio; PSU ¼ *Positive associations indicate that the variable increases thelikelihood of IPV/IPF. Constructs are stated in the direction of the hypothesized effect that would increase IPV risk.
24 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
reported some evidence that neighborhood-level factors are
associated with physical and/or sexual IPV. Community- or
neighborhood-level indicators most frequently associated with
IPV included measures related to community socioeconomics
(e.g., unemployment rate, per capita income, poverty rate, edu-
cation, etc.; n ¼ 11). All of these studies were set in the United
States and used Census indicators; three of these studies used
an index to combine Census indicators theorized to comprise
the construct of neighborhood disadvantage. Four studies
examined neighborhood social disorder and/or collective effi-
cacy, applying the work of Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls
(1997) to IPV. In contrast to U.S. studies, those conducted in
India and Bangladesh reported associations between such
social indicators as community norms regarding violence, com-
munity attitudes toward women, women’s literacy, and educa-
tion, and murder rates.
Over and above what would be expected based on
individual-level factors, individuals living in neighborhoods
and communities with high unemployment (O’Campo et al.,
1995), low average incomes (Mears et al., 2001; O’Campo
et al., 1995), higher proportions of female-headed households
(Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004), and higher proportions of house-
holds with children (Lauritsen & Schaum, 2004) have been
found to be at increased risk of IPV. Less evidence has been
found to support the notion that neighborhoods with lower
owner occupancy, lower neighborhood wealth, higher propor-
tions of non-White residents, lower educational or occupational
attainment, more vacant housing, or higher immigrant concen-
trations are associated with IPV occurrence. No evidence has
been found to support the idea that levels of human and eco-
nomic development, largely within developing countries, are
associated with IPV occurrence. Lower male literacy rates,
however, have been associated with increased IPV (Ackerson
et al., 2008).
Results of the investigations of the relationship between
neighborhood disadvantage and IPV have been mixed, with a
number of researchers reporting significant associations (Ben-
son et al., 2003; Benson, Wooldredge, Thistlethwaite, & Fox,
2004; O’Campo et al., 1995), some reporting nonsignificant
effects (Li et al., 2010), and others reporting differential effects
for different races/ethnicities (Cunradi et al., 2000) or con-
founding effects between race and neighborhood-level disad-
vantage (Benson et al., 2004; Van Wyk et al., 2003).
Residential stability, traditionally hypothesized to have a
strengthening effect on neighborhoods that could reduce rates
of violent crime, has been found instead to be associated with
increased IPV (Benson et al., 2003; Li et al., 2010; Waller
et al., 2012) or to have no association (Browning, 2002; Waller
et al., 2012). This has led researchers to question the meaning
of residential instability in an age when it may be associated
with higher levels of education and mobility; some have sug-
gested that residential stability, in concert with neighborhood
disadvantage, could in fact prolong and deepen one’s experi-
ence of disadvantage, thereby increasing the likelihood of
occurrence. Lower levels of collective efficacy (Browning,
2002; Dekeseredy et al., 2003), lower levels of social cohesion
(Obasaju, Palin, Jacobs, Anderson, & Kaslow, 2009), stronger
norms of nonintervention (Browning, 2002), and higher per-
ceived neighborhood disorder (Cunradi, 2007, 2009)—more
direct measures of social disorganization—have been found
to be associated with increased IPV. Interestingly, a recent
study linked neighborhood levels of legal cynicism—anomie
with respect to law—with IPV (Emery, Jolley, & Wu, 2011).
Results have been mixed in support of the association
between community rates of crime and violence and IPV (Li
et al., 2010; Raghavan et al., 2006). However, higher levels
of perceived violence, exposure to violence, or worry about
violence have been found by several researchers to be associ-
ated with IPV (Naved & Persson, 2008; Raghavan et al.,
2006, 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Stueve & O’Donnell, 2008).
Cultural and sociobehavioral influences have been found to
be important, particularly in developing country contexts.
Higher levels of IPV in social networks and communities have
been found to be associated with increased likelihood of
experiencing IPV (McQuestion, 2003; Raghavan et al., 2006,
2009; Uthman et al., 2011). In addition, there is considerable
evidence to suggest that communities with high levels of
women’s empowerment are protective against IPV (Ackerson
et al., 2008; Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008; Boyle et al.,
2009; Koenig et al., 2003), including women’s participation
in savings/credit groups (Koenig et al., 2003), women’s auton-
omy (Koenig et al., 2003), female literacy (Ackerson et al.,
2008; Boyle et al., 2009), and gender equality (Ackerson
et al., 2008). It is important to note that all of the evidence
regarding aggregate levels of women’s empowerment and IPV
come from developing country contexts.
Evidence surrounding urbanicity and rurality is mixed and
limited. Some evidence suggests that increasing rurality may
be associated with IPV (Aklimunnessa, Khan, Kabir, & Mori,
2007; Antai, 2011; Flake, 2005), while one study found a link
between urbanicity and IPV (Abeya, Afework, & Yalew,
2011). Most studies examining the importance of urbanicity
and rurality have been done in developing countries, and many
studies have limited methodology to binary urban versus rural
categories, despite the differences among urban, suburban,
rural farm, rural nonfarm, and remote types of environments.
Very little evidence has linked alcohol outlet density to IPV
occurrence (McKinney et al., 2009; Waller et al., 2012). Over-
all, for the constructs tested by more than one analytic
approach, the type of statistical model employed (logistic
regression vs. multilevel or survey regression) did not appear
to affect conclusions drawn.
Summary
The preponderance of studies in our review suggests that some
neighborhood-level factors are associated with IPV. Of the 36
studies reviewed, 30 reported a positive association between one
or more community or neighborhood characteristics and some
type of IPV; however, 13 of these studies did not use an analytic
method that accounted for ecological levels (i.e., individual vari-
ables, neighborhood variables). Of the 17 studies that did account
Beyer et al. 25
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
for ecological levels in some way (either via sample stratification
or a multilevel analytic method), the vast majority found associa-
tions between neighborhood/community indicators and IPV,
independent of individual-level variables.
This growing body of literature examining neighborhood
factors associated with IPV is an exciting contribution to IPV
research. There is ample evidence to indicate that some aspects
of neighborhood may be risk markers or risk factors for IPV,
independent of individual characteristics. This knowledge can
help to frame future research questions and hypotheses and,
importantly, build a framework for testing community-level
public health interventions that focus on changes in urban plan-
ning, education of women, and community norms about
violence.
In terms of future research, new work should carefully con-
sider and then model or test the types of sophisticated theoreti-
cal approaches and conceptual models that are now
predominantly in the sociological literature. Better articulation
of theory should lead to more specific measures of community-
level indicators. We found wide variation in definitions of
‘‘community’’ and ‘‘neighborhood,’’ although this is in part
related to local definitions and differences in regions. While
U.S. studies had access to similar Census-based definitions
(e.g., Census tract), the non-U.S. studies relied on different def-
initions of community or differentiated between urban and
rural or coastal and noncoastal areas. Future efforts should con-
sider the benefits and limitations of different geographical def-
initions and identify the most appropriate geographies for the
research questions asked. Future work should also expand and
compare types of violence (physical, sexual, and psychologi-
cal/emotional) and types of perpetrators and victims (male/
female, heterosexual/Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and
Queer). In particular, very few studies have considered psycho-
logical or emotional violence and aggression, and no studies
reviewed specifically focused on same-sex relationships.
Similarly, U.S. and Canadian research used Census indica-
tors of neighborhood socioeconomic status, while scholars
studying IPV in Asia used data on community attitudes toward
women, violence toward women, and women’s literacy and
education. While both approaches have merit and reflect avail-
able sources of data, the non-U.S. studies appear to be particu-
larly innovative in quantifying community norms and attitudes
toward women based on theory. Furthermore, community
norms and attitudes can be modified through systems- and
community-level interventions (e.g., improving education for
women), while socioeconomic indicators are more accurately
risk markers and are less modifiable than community attitudes.
Discussion
Overall, we found that articles based on sociology and crimin-
ology often provide stronger and more systematic theoretical
bases for their research questions or hypotheses. Epidemiologi-
cal studies are making progress, particularly in methodology,
but most studies in our review lacked theoretical basis or con-
ceptual models showing hypothesized pathways of influence.
From our review, it is clear that the extant literature relating
residential environments to IPV has examined a number of
interwoven pathways by which a residential environment may
lead to increased occurrence of IPV.
The most frequently described pathways linking neighbor-
hood environment to IPV, especially in the United States, rely
on social disorganization theory. Developed primarily by
sociologists at the University of Chicago, and attributed pri-
marily to Shaw and McKay and their influential work Juvenile
Delinquency and Urban Areas, this theory has been tradition-
ally used to explain rates of violent crime in urban settings
(Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942). Social dis-
organization theory describes the process by which conditions
of socioeconomic disadvantage and residential instability dis-
rupt social bonds and limit collective activity to maintain social
control, increasing the likelihood of deviant behaviors such as
violence (Perkins & Taylor, 1996; Sampson & Groves, 1989;
Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Although originally
proposed in relation to more public forms of violence, research-
ers have more recently begun to adapt this theory to IPV (Ben-
son et al., 2003; Raghavan et al., 2006). Browning (2002)
acknowledges that intimate violence differs in two main ways
from other types of violence, which may modify the role for
social disorganization in affecting IPV: the questionable ability
of the community to monitor intimate violence as it often takes
place hidden from public view, and the potentially false
assumption that community members will recognize violence
between intimate partners as deviant, and therefore feel it nec-
essary to intervene (Browning, 2002).
Also suggested is a relationship between the nature of cul-
tural norms at the neighborhood level and perpetration of inti-
mate violence. Borrowing from Sampson and Wilson’s (1995)
notion of the ‘‘cognitive landscape’’ of ecologically structured
norms that guide appropriate conduct (Benson et al., 2003;
Sampson & Wilson, 1995), some researchers have suggested
that under certain conditions, violence may become normalized
(McQuestion, 2003), attributing this normalization of violence
to prevailing levels of community or societal violence. This
may result in the notion that violence is an acceptable way to
resolve conflict and even an appropriate way to treat women.
In addition to increased violence, others may be less inclined
to intervene or even view it as a negative behavior (Browning,
2002; Raghavan et al., 2009). McQuestion (2003) suggests that
IPV may also be reinforced through a more general social
learning process, where ‘‘high IPV neighborhoods are places
where individuals observe influential others being rewarded for
engaging in the behavior and adopt it themselves. A low IPV
neighborhood is one where IPV perpetrators are socially ostra-
cized or otherwise punished, making it less likely others will
reproduce the behaviors’’ (McQuestion, 2003).
Theories of social support/social isolation appear frequently
in the IPV literature, where scholars posit that added social sup-
port and decreased social isolation may reduce the likelihood of
occurrence (Lanier & Maume, 2009; Van Wyk et al., 2003).
However, it has been suggested that particular social networks
can in fact encourage IPV through ‘‘embeddedness’’ in a
26 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
culture where IPV is common (Raghavan et al., 2006). The
notion of social support has been conceptualized as a protective
factor for family violence and other health and health-related
outcomes. However, scholars do not fully agree on either mea-
sures of social support or mechanisms for how social support
acts on physiology or behavior. In communities where the
social atmosphere centers on drugs and violence, social isola-
tion may be protective. Caughy and others have observed that
neighborhood attitudes are not homogenous and that multiple
norms may exist (Caughy, Brodsky, O’Campo, & Aronson,
2001). Brodsky (1996) found that resilient mothers living in
disadvantaged neighborhoods create personal boundaries to
protect themselves and their families from ‘‘negative psycholo-
gical sense of community’’ (p. 347). Wallis, Winch, and
O’Campo (2010) reported that women with less social support
were more resilient in the face of challenging conditions; like
Brodsky, she found that some women protect themselves and
their children from the negative social support in the neighbor-
hood (Wallis, Winch, & O’Campo, 2010). The meaning of
these insights for research is that the constructs of ‘‘social sup-
port’’ and ‘‘isolation’’ are very complex and need to be clearly
specified in research. Without such specification, there is
potential for incorrectly measuring or interpreting ‘‘social sup-
port,’’ ‘‘isolation,’’ and other related constructs; thus, the fam-
ily that isolates itself from community influences could exhibit
fewer factors associated with violence than a family engaged in
a ‘‘negative’’ community.
The non-U.S. literature places more emphasis on commu-
nity constructs regarding women’s empowerment, often mea-
sured through education or literacy as a proxy. Koenig and
colleagues use women’s participation in savings/credit groups
as a proxy for education (i.e., ‘‘autonomy’’) and found that a
lower index of autonomy was associated with more violence
in one region in Bangladesh. In India, Koenig examined
‘‘wife-beating’’ norms and found that the district-level murder
rate was associated with higher rates of physical abuse against
women. Ackerson and colleagues (2008) analyzed Indian
national survey data, finding that female and male literacy were
inversely associated with IPV. Although this study addresses
the education of women as a risk/protective factor, the authors
do not fully describe the pathways through which education
may be related to abuse.
Beyond identifying associations between neighborhood
characteristics and IPV, it is important to consider the pathways
responsible for the associations observed. Identifying these
pathways is critical to identifying future targets and approaches
for intervention. To this end, and drawing from the literature
reviewed, we present a list of pathways (Table 3) that have been
proposed as linking neighborhood environment to the occur-
rence of IPV, following the domains identified in Table 2, and
discuss these pathways subsequently. These domains and path-
ways and can form the basis for a conceptual framework to guide
future research.
Neighborhood-level factors can create an environment of
increased risk for IPV. Socioeconomic disadvantage is an often
cited determinant of health and has been linked with numerous
disease and injury categories. Concentrated socioeconomic dis-
advantage at the neighborhood or community level is often dis-
cussed as an antecedent to violence as well as a cause of other
antecedents to violence, including social disorganization, social
disorder, physical disorder, and residential instability (Benson
et al., 2003, 2004; Browning, 2002; Miles-Doan & Kelly, 1997;
Van Wyk et al., 2003). Conditions of concentrated disadvantage
may limit employment and other opportunities, increasing resi-
dential instability and levels of stress (O’Campo et al., 1995), lim-
iting or weakening social ties among neighbors, and decreasing
neighbors’ sense of community and attachment to place (Brown-
ing, 2002). Neighbors with weak or nonexistent relationships will
be less willing or able to collaborate to solve problems affecting
the neighborhood as a whole (Browning, 2002), and community
resources will be limited (Burke, O’Campo, & Peak, 2006).
In conditions of socioeconomic disadvantage and/or wea-
kened neighborhood social cohesion, buildings, parks, and other
physical features of the neighborhood can fall into disrepair, and
this physical disorder may signal the neighborhood’s unwilling-
ness or inability to maintain social control, thus encouraging vio-
lence (Wilson & Kelling, 1982). Behavior responds to the
neighbors’ collective inability to maintain social control; social
disorder (‘‘behavior usually involving strangers and considered
threatening’’; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999, p. 603) may
increase, further signaling that few sanctions will occur to curb
violent behavior, especially in private spaces.
In addition, alcohol outlets abound, serving those who may
turn to alcohol to diminish levels of stress or worry, increasing
the likelihood of alcohol abuse, and providing locations for
like-minded individuals to congregate and reinforce attitudes,
norms, and behaviors—including those supporting intimate
violence and alcohol abuse—through social interaction (Cun-
radi, 2010; McKinney et al., 2009; Raghavan et al., 2006).
Another possibility is that there are more alcohol outlets
because there is more demand for alcohol; or, less regulation/
zoning against alcohol-selling establishments. Violence may
be considered by neighbors to be an acceptable way to deal
with problems, due to either cultural antecedents or the normal-
izing effect that prolonged exposure to violence produces
(Raghavan et al., 2006); violence against women may be espe-
cially accepted (Ackerson et al., 2008).
In some places, the status of women is low, and women may
have limited education, few financial resources, and few
friends or family members to turn to. They may have numerous
other urgent concerns stemming from environmental condi-
tions, such as financial stability or caring for young children
as a single, or more responsible, parent. Traditional gender
roles may prevail, or educational opportunities may not be
available on an equal basis, further subordinating women (Ack-
erson et al., 2008; Boyle et al., 2009). Perhaps attributable to
the overall diminished status of women, or to the disorganiza-
tion of the neighborhood, victims of abuse may interact socially
with others experiencing partner violence, thus normalizing the
violence they are experiencing and reducing their ability to end
the violence (Allen, Swan, & Raghavan, 2009; Raghavan et al.,
2006). Neighbors may not intervene, due to weakened social
Beyer et al. 27
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
ties (Van Wyk et al., 2003), lack of communication (Burke
et al., 2006), norms for nonintervention, and keeping to one’s
own business (Benson et al., 2004; Browning, 2002), or may
not be alert or vigilant in response to intimate violence occur-
ring in the neighborhood (Burke et al., 2006).
In environments characterized by conditions such as these,
intimate relationships can suffer. Due to low levels of eco-
nomic development and opportunity, a potential abuser may
have unstable, infrequent, or absent employment, increasing
his levels of rage, frustration, and embarrassment about his
inability to achieve the perceived imperative to provide for his
family (Li et al., 2010; McQuestion, 2003; Raghavan et al.,
2006), and potentially also his use of alcohol. He may have few
social ties and little concern that neighbors are paying attention
to, or are likely to intervene to stop, his abusive behavior (Ben-
son et al., 2004); social interactions he does have may involve
alcohol or may be with individuals in his social network who
are also abusive or accept the subordination and/or control of
women (Raghavan et al., 2006, 2009). To protect himself, the
abuser may limit the victim’s contact with other people, which
is not difficult to accomplish, given the disorganized and highly
mobile nature of the community. Victims become increasingly
Table 3. Pathways by Which Neighborhood Environment is Hypothesized to Influence Intimate Partner Violence Risk: Questions for FutureResearch.
Demographic and socioeconomic neighborhood compositionLow levels of income, educational or occupational attainment, and home ownership create dissatisfaction, stress and rage, which increase thelikelihood of intimate violenceEthnic heterogeneity within neighborhoods impedes communication among residents, weakening social ties, reducing the likelihood thatneighbors intervene to stop intimate violence
Human and economic developmentLow levels of human and/or economic development create situations of socioeconomic distress, creating dissatisfaction, stress and rage,which increase the likelihood of intimate violence.Few community resources, such as domestic violence intervention programs, are available, decreasing awareness of domestic violence as adeviant behavior and increasing the likelihood of its perpetration.Few community resources, such as domestic violence intervention programs, are available, decreasing the likelihood of intervention to stopviolence.
Social disorganization theoryConcentrated socioeconomic disadvantage limits social ties, which increases social isolation, simultaneously limiting a victim’s ability to callupon resources to prevent or end intimate violence, and increasing her dependence on the aggressorConcentrated socioeconomic disadvantage increase levels of stress, increasing the likelihood that a male partner will resort to violenceConditions of concentrated disadvantage signal that social control is limited, thereby encouraging intimate violent acts with the promise ofimpunityResidential instability loosens social ties and reduces collective efficacy, preventing neighbors from acting collectively to curb violence,including violence in private settingsResidential stability, coupled with disadvantage, deepens and prolongs the experience of disadvantage, thereby increasing the risk of intimateviolencePhysical disorder/deterioration signal ambivalence about violence, or inability of neighbors to enforce social controls, increasing the likelihoodof intimate violence.Norms supporting non-intervention in a neighbor’s affairs reduce a neighbor’s likelihood of intervening to prevent or stop violence
Community violence and prevalence/acceptance of ipvHigh levels of community and/or social network violence signal that social control is limited, thereby encouraging intimate, violent acts withthe promise of impunity.High levels of community and/or social network violence normalize and/or legitimize violence as a form of conflict resolution, therebyencouraging intimate violent acts with the promise of impunity.
Empowerment of womenPredominance of patriarchal notions of female subservience legitimize violence against women, thereby encouraging intimate violent acts withthe promise of impunityPredominance of patriarchal notions of the male as breadwinner, in combination with situations of disadvantage and male unemployment orunstable employment, increases male rage and feelings of need to dominate his female partner through acts of intimate violencePredominance of notions of privacy and stoicism limit the likelihood of neighbors intervening to stop intimate violent actsGeneral subjugation of women supports the notion that women can be controlled through violenceCultural acceptance of violence as conflict resolution, and/or violence against women, increases the likelihood that intimate violence willoccur
Urbanicity/rurality and regionalizationWomen in rural areas may be at an increased risk of violence due to geographic isolation, which hides violence and prevents interventions tostop violenceRegions distinct in culture or economic activity may have differences in prevalence of intimate violence
Alcohol outlet densityAlcohol availability encourages alcohol use, thereby increasing the likelihood of intimate violenceAlcohol outlets provide locations for at-risk individuals to congregate, thereby reinforcing problem attitudes and behaviors and increasing thelikelihood of intimate violence
28 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
dependent on the abuser and opportunities to generate social
support that could reduce exposure to IPV are diminished
(Raghavan et al., 2006, 2009; Van Wyk et al., 2003). Overall,
conditions such as these increase the likelihood that IPV will
occur and decrease the likelihood that it will end.
Limitations
Our review is limited to articles published in English and thus
may not include studies from countries or regions where research
findings are primarily published in another language or studies
cited in reports. We have also limited our review to efforts that
model IPV occurrence while considering both individual and
contextual influences. Much can be learned about constructs
linking environments to IPV from qualitative research (Burke
et al., 2006), in addition to descriptive accounts that may not take
a modeling approach. A future review could consider these
areas. Our discussion is framed primarily to reflect the types
of IPV included in the articles reviewed and thus does not reflect
a full examination of race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orienta-
tion. Finally, while a comprehensive review is valuable in
identifying broader themes, trends, and research directions,
future work could focus on specific subpopulations defined by
sociodemographic characteristics, type of violence (physical,
sexual, psychological), or forms (victimization, perpetration,
mutual IPV). We generalize our description to consider urban
and rural settings and developed and developing country settings
simultaneously. It is possible, and even likely, that pathways
linking environments to IPV differ between these categories of
environments.
Conclusions
The literature on neighborhood environment and IPV is young but
receiving increasing attention from researchers in sociology, pub-
lic health, criminology, and other fields. This review has
identified several key policies and practice implications as a result
of the ongoing examination of neighborhood environmental fac-
tors and IPV. These implications, listed in Table 4, provide a start-
ing point for addressing the features of neighborhoods that may
influence IPV.
Gaps in the literature reviewed include limited consideration
of nonurban areas, limited theoretical motivation, and limited
consideration of the range of potential contributors to environ-
mental effects on IPV. Built environmental factors, such as access
to IPV, health, faith-based or social services, or the importance of
urban planning initiatives aimed toward improved health, safety,
and social interaction—such as residential architectural features
(front porches, front yards, housing density), reduced numbers
of vacant lots, or neighborhood parks and greening—have not
been examined. Race, ethnicity, and culture have only rarely been
explicitly considered in studies relating neighborhood factors to
IPV. Other gaps include little information from the developing
world or from regions including Europe and the Middle East,
although this omission could be associated with our limitation
of the literature reviewed to English language only. In addition,
as the literature examining the importance of neighborhood envi-
ronment for IPV is still developing, explanations of the pathways
by which neighborhoods influence IPV remain limited; explana-
tions that draw mainly from social disorganization theory, which
was developed in urban settings, may need to be expanded and
adapted, especially explain residential environmental correlates
of IPV in rural settings.
Much room for future research remains. A more com-
plete theoretical understanding of the relationship between
place and IPV, especially considering differences among
urban, semiurban, and rural settings, and developed and
developing country settings, and expanding the range of
neighborhood characteristics considered—particularly those
that are more amenable to intervention—will be necessary
to advance research questions and improve policy and inter-
vention responses to reduce the burden of IPV.
Table 4. Implications for Policy and Practice.
Policy or Practice Implication Research Supporting Implication
Efforts to reduce overall levels of neighborhood disadvantage mayreduce rates of IPV
(Benson et al., 2003, 2004; Cunradi et al., 2000; DeMaris et al., 2003;McKinney et al., 2009; Van Wyk et al., 2003; Waller et al., 2011)
Efforts to increase levels of neighborhood collective efficacy mayreduce rates of IPV
(Browning, 2002; Dekeseredy et al., 2003)
Efforts to reduce levels of neighborhood disorder may reduce rates ofIPV
(Cunradi, 2007, 2009; Obasaju et al., 2009);
Efforts to reduce community levels of crime and violence may reducerates of IPV
(Dekeseredy et al., 2003; Koenig et al., 2006; Naved & Persson, 2008;Raghavan et al., 2006, 2009; Reed et al., 2009; Stueve & O’Donnell,2008)
Efforts to reduce cultural norms supporting violence against women,including dissemination via social networks, may reduce IPV,particularly in developing country contexts
(Koenig et al., 2006; McQuestion, 2003; Raghavan et al., 2006, 2009;Uthman et al., 2011)
Efforts to educate and empower women may reduce rates of IPV,particularly in developing country contexts
(Ackerson & Subramanian, 2008; Boyle et al., 2009; Koenig et al.,2003);
Efforts to address problems of geographic and social isolationassociated with rural environments may reduce rates of IPV
(Aklimunnessa et al., 2007; Antai, 2011; Flake, 2005)
Note. IPV ¼ intimate partner violence.
Beyer et al. 29
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The first
author was supported in part by the Clinical & Translational Science
Institute of Southeast Wisconsin: NIH UL1RR031973c.
References
Abeya, S. G., Afework, M. F., & Yalew, A. W. (2011). Intimate part-
ner violence against women in western Ethiopia: Prevalence, pat-
terns, and associated factors. BMC Public Health, 11, 913.
Ackerson, L. K., Kawachi, I., Barbeau, E. M., & Subramanian, S.
(2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context
on intimate partner violence: A population-based study of women
in India. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 507–514.
Ackerson, L. K., & Subramanian, S. V. (2008). State gender inequal-
ity, socioeconomic status and intimate partner violence (IPV) in
India: A multilevel analysis. [Article]. Australian Journal of Social
Issues, 43, 81–102.
Aklimunnessa, K., Khan, M. M. H., Kabir, M., & Mori, M. (2007).
Prevalence and correlates of domestic violence by husbands
against wives in Bangladesh: Evidence from a national survey.
Journal of Men’s Health and Gender, 4, 52–63.
Alhabib, S., Nur, U., & Jones, R. (2010). Domestic violence against
women: Systematic review of prevalence studies. Journal of Fam-
ily Violence, 25, 369–382.
Allen, C. T., Swan, S. C., & Raghavan, C. (2009). Gender symmetry,
sexism, and intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpers Vio-
lence, 24, 1816–1834.
Antai, D. (2011). Controlling behavior, power relations within inti-
mate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual vio-
lence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health, 11, 511.
Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., DeMaris, A., & van Wyk, J. (2003). Neigh-
borhood disadvantage, individual economic distress and violence
against women in intimate relationships. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 19, 207–235.
Benson, M. L., Wooldredge, J., Thistlethwaite, A. B., & Fox, G. L.
(2004). The correlation between race and domestic violence is con-
founded with community context. Social Problems, 51, 326–342.
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters, M.
L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011). The National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 sum-
mary report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Boyle, M. H., Georgiades, K., Cullen, J., & Racine, Y. (2009). Com-
munity influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women’s
education, attitudes towards mistreatment and standards of living.
Social Science and Medicine, 69, 691–697.
Brodsky, A. E. (1996). Resilient single mothers in risky neighbor-
hoods: Negative psychological sense of community. Journal of
Community Psychology, 24, 347–363.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, England: Harvard
University Press.
Browning, C. R. (2002). The span of collective efficacy: Extending
social disorganization theory to partner violence. [Article]. Journal
of Marriage & Family, 64, 833–850.
Burke, J. G., O’Campo, P., & Peak, G. L. (2006). Neighborhood influ-
ences and intimate partner violence: Does geographic setting mat-
ter? Journal of Urban Health, 83, 182–194.
Caetano, R., Ramisetty-Mikler, S., & Harris, T. R. (2010). Neighbor-
hood characteristics as predictors of male to female and female to
male partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 25,
1986–2009.
Carmen, E. H., Rieker, P. P., & Mills, T. (1984). Victims of violence
and psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141,
378–383.
Caughy, M. O., Brodsky, A. E., O’Campo, P. J., & Aronson, R.
(2001). Perceptions of parenting: Individual differences and the
effect of community. American Journal of Community Psychology,
29, 679–699.
Coulton, C. J., Crampton, D. S., Irwin, M., Spilsbury, J. C., & Korbin,
J. E. (2007). How neighborhoods influence child maltreatment:
A review of the literature and alternative pathways. Child Abuse
and Neglect, 31, 1117–1142.
Cunradi, C. B. (2007). Drinking level, neighborhood social disorder,
and mutual intimate partner violence. [Article]. Alcoholism: Clin-
ical & Experimental Research, 31, 1012–1019.
Cunradi, C. B. (2009). Intimate partner violence among hispanic men
and women: The role of drinking, neighborhood disorder, and
acculturation-related factors. Violence and Victims, 24, 83–97.
Cunradi, C. B. (2010). Neighborhoods, alcohol outlets and intimate
partner violence: Addressing research gaps in explanatory mechan-
isms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public
Health, 7, 799–813.
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., Clark, C., & Schafer, J. (2000). Neighbor-
hood poverty as a predictor of intimate partner violence among
White, Black, and Hispanic couples in the United States: A multi-
level analysis. Annals of Epidemiology, 10, 297–308.
Dekeseredy, W. S., Schwartz, M. D., Alvi, S., & Tomaszewski, E.
(2003). Perceived collective efficacy and women’s victimization
in public housing. Criminal Justice: International Journal of Pol-
icy and Practice, 3, 5–27.
DeMaris, A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., Hill, T., & Van Wyk, J.
(2003). Distal and proximal factors in domestic violence: A test
of an integrated model. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65,
652–667.
Diez Roux, A. V. (2001). Investigating neighborhood and area effects
on health. American Journal of Public Health, 91, 1783–1789.
Diez Roux, A. V. (2003). Residential environments and cardiovascu-
lar risk. Journal of Urban Health, 80, 569–589.
Diez Roux, A. V. (2009). The persistent puzzle of the geographic pat-
terning of cardiovascular disease. Preventive Medicine, 49,
133–134.
Dutton, M. A. (2009). Pathways linking intimate partner violence
and posttraumatic disorder. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10,
211–224.
30 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Emery, C. R., Jolley, J. M., & Wu, S. (2011). Desistance from intimate
partner violence: The role of legal cynicism, collective efficacy,
and social disorganization in chicago neighborhoods. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 373–383.
Flake, D. F. (2005). Individual, family, and community risk markers for
domestic violence in Peru. [Article]. Violence Against Women, 11,
353–373.
Flowerdew, R., Manley, D. J., & Sabel, C. E. (2008). Neighbourhood
effects on health: Does it matter where you draw the boundaries?
Social Science & Medicine, 66, 1241–1255.
Frye, V., Galea, S., Tracy, M., Bucciarelli, A., Putnam, S., & Wilt, S.
(2008). The role of neighborhood environment and risk of intimate
partner femicide in a large urban area. American Journal of Public
Health, 98, 1473–1479.
Garbarino, J., & Crouter, A. (1978). Defining the comminity context
for parent-child relations: The correlates of child maltreatment.
Child Development, 49, 604–616.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C.
H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: Findings from
the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic
violence. Lancet, 368, 1260–1269.
Gelles, RJ. (1985). Family violence. Annual review of sociology. 11,
347–367.
Haber, J. D. (1985). Abused women and chronic pain. American Journal
of Nursing, 85, 1010, 1012.
Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottmoeller, M. (2002). A global overview
of gender-based violence. International Journal of Gynecology &
Obstetrics, 78, S5–S14.
Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: an integrated, ecologi-
cal framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290.
Jones, A. S., Gielen, A. C., Campbell, J. C., Schollenberger, J., Diene-
mann, J., Kub, J., O’Campo, P, & Wynne, E. C. (1999). Annual and
lifetime prevalence of partner abuse in a sample of female HMO
enrollees. Women’s Health Issues, 9, 295–305.
Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2003). Neighborhoods and health.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Koenig, M. A., Ahmed, S., Hossain, M. B., & Khorshed Alam
Mozumder, A. B. (2003). Women’s status and domestic violence
in rural Bangladesh: Individual- and community-level effects.
Demography, 40, 269–288.
Koenig, M. A., Ahmed, S., Stephenson, R., Jejeebhoy, S. J., & Camp-
bell, J. (2006). Individual and contextual determinants of domestic
violence in North India. [Article]. American Journal of Public
Health, 96, 132–138.
Kramer, A., Lorenzon, D., & Mueller, G. (2004). Prevalence of inti-
mate partner violence and health implications for women using
emergency departments and primary care clinics. Womens Health
Issues, 14, 19–29.
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002). The
world report on violence and health. Lancet, 360, 1083–1088.
Lanier, C., & Maume, M. O. (2009). Intimate partner violence and
social isolation across the rural/urban divide. [Article]. Violence
Against Women, 15, 1311–1330.
Lauritsen, J. L., & Schaum, R. J. (2004). The social ecology of vio-
lence against women. [Article]. Criminology, 42, 323–357.
Li, Q., Kirby, R. S., Sigler, R. T., Hwang, S. S., LaGory, M. E., &
Goldenberg, R. L. (2010). A multilevel analysis of individual,
household, and neighborhood correlates of intimate partner vio-
lence among low-income pregnant women in Jefferson County,
Alabama. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 531–539.
Linos, N., & Kawachi, I. (2012). Community social norms as social
determinants of violence against women. American Journal of
Public Health, 102, 199–200.
Madkour, A. S., Martin, S. L., Halpern, C. T., & Schoenbach, V. J.
(2010). Area disadvantage and intimate partner homicide: An eco-
logical analysis of North Carolina counties, 2004-2006. Violence
and Victims, 25, 363–377.
McKinney, C. M., Caetano, R., Harris, T. R., & Ebama, M. S. (2009).
Alcohol availability and intimate partner violence among US cou-
ples. [Article]. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research, 33,
169–176.
McQuestion, M. J. (2003). Endogenous social effects on intimate part-
ner violence in Colombia. [Article]. Social Science Research, 32,
335–345.
Mears, D. P., Carlson, M. J., Holden, G. W., & Harris, S. D. (2001).
Reducing domestic violence revictimization: The effects of indi-
vidual and contextual factors and type of legal intervention. [Arti-
cle]. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1260.
Miles-Doan, R. (1998). Violence between spouses and intimates:
Does neighborhood context matter? Social Forces, 77, 623–645.
Miles-Doan, R., & Kelly, S. (1997). Geographic concentration of vio-
lence between intimate partners. Public Health Reports, 112,
135–141.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. Open Medicine, 3, e123–e130.
Naved, R. T., & Persson, L. A. (2005). Factors associated with spousal
physical violence against women in Bangladesh. Stud Fam Plann,
36, 289–300.
Naved, R. T., & Persson, L. A. (2008). Factors associated with phys-
ical spousal abuse of women during pregnancy in Bangladesh.
International Family Planning Perspectives, 34, 71–78.
O’Campo, P. (2003). Invited commentary: Advancing theory and
methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and
health. American Journal of Epidemiology, 157, 9–13.
O’Campo, P., Gielen, A. C., Faden, R. R., Xue, X., Kass, N., & Wang,
M. C. (1995). Violence by male partners against women during the
childbearing year: A contextual analysis. American Journal of
Public Health, 85, 1092–1097.
Obasaju, M. A., Palin, F. L., Jacobs, C., Anderson, P., & Kaslow, N. J.
(2009). Won’t you be my neighbor? Using an ecological approach
to examine the impact of community on revictimization. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 24, 38–53.
Pearlman, D. N., Zierler, S., Gjelsvik, A., & Verhoek-Oftedahl, W.
(2003). Neighborhood environment, racial position, and risk of
police-reported domestic violence: A contextual analysis. Public
Health Reports, 118, 44–58.
Peek-Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P., & Saftlas,
A. (2011). Rural disparity in domestic violence prevalence and
access to resources. Journal of Womens Health, 20, 1743–1749.
Beyer et al. 31
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Perkins, D. D., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). Ecological assessments of
community disorder: Their relationship to fear of crime and theo-
retical implications. American Journal of Community Psychology,
24, 63–107.
Pruitt, S. L., Shim, M. J., Mullen, P. D., Vernon, S. W., & Amick, B.
C. (2009). Association of area socioeconomic status and breast,
cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.
Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention, 18, 2579.
Raghavan, C., Mennerich, A., Sexton, E., & James, S. E. (2006).
Community violence and its direct, indirect, and mediating
effects on intimate partner violence. Violence Against Women,
12, 1132–1149.
Raghavan, C., Rajah, V., Gentile, K., Collado, L., & Kavanagh, A. M.
(2009). Community violence, social support networks, ethnic
group differences, and male perpetration of intimate partner vio-
lence. [Article]. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 1615–1632.
Reed, E., Silverman, J. G., Welles, S. L., Santana, M. C., Missmer, S.
A., & Raj, A. (2009). Associations between perceptions and invol-
vement in neighborhood violence and intimate partner violence
perpetration among urban, African American Men. [Article]. Jour-
nal of Community Health, 34, 328–335.
Saftlas, A. F., Wallis, A. B., Shochet, T., Harland, K. K., Dickey, P., &
Peek-Asa, C. (2010). Prevalence of intimate partner violence
among an abortion clinic population. American Journal of Public
Health, 100, 1412–1415.
Saltzman, L. E., Johnson, C. H., Gilbert, B. C., & Goodwin, M. M.
(2003). Physical abuse around the time of pregnancy: An examina-
tion of prevalence and risk factors in 16 states. Maternal and Child
Health Journal, 7, 31–43.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and
crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal
of Sociology, 94, 774–802.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social obser-
vation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighbor-
hoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighbor-
hoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy.
Science, 277, 918–924.
Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a theory of race,
crime, and inequality. In J. Hagan & R. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and
inequality (pp. 37–54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban
areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Stith, S. M., Green, N. M., Smith, D. B., & Ward, D. B. (2008). Marital
satisfaction and marital discord as risk markers for intimate partner
violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 23,
149–160.
Stueve, A., & O’Donnell, L. (2008). Urban young women’s experi-
ences of discrimination and community violence and intimate part-
ner violence. Journal of Urban Health, 85, 386–401.
Uthman, O. A., Moradi, T., & Lawoko, S. (2011). Are individual and
community acceptance and witnessing of intimate partner violence
related to its occurrence? Multilevel structural equation model.
PLoS One, 6, e27738.
Van Wyk, J. A., Benson, M. L., Fox, G. L., & DeMaris, A. (2003).
Detangling individual-, partner-, and community-level correlates
of partner violence. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 412–438.
Waller, M. W., Iritani, B. J., Christ, S. L., Clark, H. K., Moracco, K. E.,
Halpern, C. T., & Flewelling, R. L. (2011). Relationships among
alcohol outlet density, alcohol use, and intimate partner violence
victimization among young women in the United States. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 27, 2062–2086.
Wallis, A. B., Winch, P. J., & O’Campo, P. J. (2010). ‘‘This is not a
well place’’: Neighborhood and stress in pigtown. Health Care for
Women International, 31, 113–130.
Watts, C., & Zimmerman, C. (2002). Violence against women: global
scope and magnitude. Lancet, 359, 1232–1237.
Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982). The police and neighborhood safety:
Broken windows. Atlantic, 127, 29–38.
Author Biographies
Kirsten Beyer, PhD, MPH, MS is an assistant professor in the Insti-
tute for Health and Society at the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr.
Beyer holds an adjunct appointment in Geography at the University
of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and is affiliated with the MCW Injury
Research Center. Dr. Beyer earned her MPH in Global Health and
PhD in Geography from the University of Iowa and her MS in Clinical
and Translational Science from the Medical College of Wisconsin. Dr.
Beyer’s work focuses on identifying spatial patterns of disease and
injury and understanding the complex human–environment processes
that create the patterns. Her current research includes exploring the
association between neighborhood conditions and intimate partner
violence through both secondary data analysis and community
engaged research frameworks.
Anne Baber Wallis, MHS, PhD, is an assistant professor of epidemiol-
ogy in the Department of Health Sciences at James Madison University
in Harrisonburg, Virginia. She is a social/reproductive epidemiologist
whose major research and publications have focused on global maternal
and child health, family violence, and contextual effects on health and
reproduction. She teaches courses on epidemiologic theory, global
health, and a new multidisciplinary seminar on globalism, health, and
history. She was trained at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health.
L. Kevin Hamberger holds a PhD in clinical psychology and is a pro-
fessor of family and community medicine in the Department of Family
and Community Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, and an
affiliate of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wis-
consin. Since 1982, he has conducted treatment and research programs
with domestically violent men and women and developed and evalu-
ated health care provider training programs to deliver violence preven-
tion and intervention services to patients. He was the principal
investigator on a recently completed CDC-funded project to evaluate
the impact of a health system’s change model of intervention to pre-
vent and end intimate partner violence in primary care settings.
32 TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE XX(X)
at MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN on March 4, 2014tva.sagepub.comDownloaded from
