Upload
tw-leung
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 83(2003) 323–324
0020-7292/03/$30.00� 2003 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rightsreserved.doi:10.1016/S0020-7292(03)00298-4
Brief communication
Intimate partner violence among infertile women
T.W. Leung*, E.H.Y. Ng, W.C. Leung, P.C. Ho
Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, The University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital, Hong Kong, China
Received 28 February 2003; received in revised form 15 May 2003; accepted 20 May 2003
Keywords: Intimate partner violence; Infertility; Quality of life
Intimate partner violence is an increasinglyimportant public health issue. We recently reportedits lifetime prevalence among pregnant women andthose seeking abortion to be 17.9%w1x and 27.3%w2x, respectively. Its occurrence during pregnancywas associated with poor obstetric outcomesw3x.
Infertility and treatment for infertility may causetremendous stress in both partners. However, littleis known about intimate partner violence amongwomen seeking infertility treatment. In this study,we determine the prevalence of intimate partnerviolence among infertile women seeking treatmentand evaluate its impact on their quality of life. Toour best knowledge, this is the first study toaddress the problem of intimate partner violenceamong infertile women.
Five hundred consecutive patients attending theoutpatient infertility clinic of a university teachinghospital in Hong Kong between February and July2000 were successfully interviewed. A projectnurse used a structured questionnaire modifiedfrom the Abuse Assessment Screen Questionnairew4x in a private setting in the absence of their malepartners. Informed written consent was obtainedprior to the interview. Those who reported ever
*Corresponding author. Tel.:q852-2855-4517; fax:q852-2817-5374.
E-mail address: [email protected](T.W. Leung).
having been abused were then asked to completethe World Health Organization Quality of LifeMeasure—Abbreviated versionwHong KongxQuestionnaire(Appendix A). This questionnaireassesses the quality of life in four domains: phys-ical health, psychological health, social relation-ships, and environment. The next participant withno history of abuse served as a control, and thesame questionnaire was administered.
The lifetime prevalence of intimate partner vio-lence was 1.8%(9y500). Of the nine women whohad ever experienced violence from their intimatepartner, five (55.6%) suffered from emotionalabuse only, three(33.3%) from physical abuseonly, and one(11.1%) from both types of abuse.Compared with the controls, quality of life scoresfrom the abused victims were significantly lowerin the social relationships domain(median 50 vs.75; Ps0.012), and tended to be lower in thepsychological health domain(median 56 vs. 69;Ps0.052) and environment domain(median 50vs. 69;Ps0.058).
The prevalence of intimate partner violenceamong women seeking treatment was found to be1.8% in our population. This has a significantimpact on the emotional well-being of the victims,as indicated by lower scores in the psychologicalhealth, social relationships, and environment
324 T.W. Leung et al. / International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics 83 (2003) 323–324
domains. The study’s major limitation is the lownumber of abused victims. A much larger samplesize will be required to examine the risk factors.
Universal screening for intimate partner violenceis still justified in this group, given the potentialhazard to both pregnancy and future child. Screen-ing of the victims and early intervention not onlycan help the woman, but also prevent child abuselater on.
Appendix A: WHOQOL-BREF (Hong Kong)Questionnaire
1. How would you rate your quality of life?2. How satisfied are you with your health?3. To what extent do you feel that physical pain preventsyou from doing what you need to do?4. How much do you need any medical treatment tofunction in your daily life?5. How much do you enjoy life?6. To what extent do you feel your life to be meaningful?7. How well are you able to concentrate?8. How safe do you feel in your daily life?9. How healthy is your physical environment?10. Do you have enough energy for everyday life?11. Are you able to accept your bodily appearance?12. Have you enough money to meet your needs?13. How available to you is the information that you need inyour day-to-day life?14. To what extent do you have the opportunity for leisureactivities?15. How well are you able to get around?16. How satisfied are you with your sleep?17. How satisfied are you with your ability to perform yourdaily living activities?
18. How satisfied are you with your capacity for work?19. How satisfied are you with yourself?20. How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?21. How satisfied are you with your sex life?22. How satisfied are you with the support you get from yourfriends?23. How satisfied are you with the conditions of your livingplace?24. How satisfied are you with your access to health services?25. How satisfied are you with your transport?26. How often do you have negative feelings such as bluemood, despair, anxiety, depression?27. Do you think people accept you?28. Is the food you desire easily available to you?
Overall questions: Q1–2Physical health domain: Q3–4, 10, 15–18Psychological domain: Q5–7, 11, 19, 26–28Social relationship domain: Q20–21Environmental domain: Q8–9, 12–14, 23–25
References
w1x Leung WC, Leung TW, Lam YYJ, Ho PC. The preva-lence of domestic violence against pregnant women ina Chinese community. Int J Gynecol Obstet1999;66:23–30.
w2x Leung TW, Leung WC, Chan PL, Ho PC. A comparisonof the prevalence of domestic violence between patientsseeking termination of pregnancy and other generalgynaecology patients. Int J Gynecol Obstet 2002;77:47–54.
w3x Mezey GC, Bewley S. Domestic violence and pregnan-cy. Br J Obstet Gynecol 1997;104:528–531.
w4x McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, Bullock L. Assessingfor abuse during pregnancy: severity and frequency ofinjuries and associated entry into prenatal care. J AmMed Assoc 1992;267:3176–3178.