Prevalence of Self-Reported Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.


Journal

Trauma, violence & abuse
ISSN: 1552-8324
Titre abrégé: Trauma Violence Abuse
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 100890578

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
07 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 19 6 2018
medline: 29 6 2021
entrez: 19 6 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) in the military has tended to focus on military personnel as perpetrators and civilian partners/spouses as victims. However, studies have found high levels of IPV victimization among military personnel. This article systematically reviews studies of the prevalence of self-reported IPV victimization among military populations. Searches of four electronic databases (Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were supplemented by reference list screening. Meta-analyses of the available data were performed, where possible, using the random effects model. This review included 28 studies with a combined sample of 69,808 military participants. Overall, similar or higher prevalence rates of physical IPV victimization were found among males compared to females and this was supported by a meta-analytic subgroup analysis: pooled prevalence of 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [17.4, 24.6]) among males and 13.6% among females (95% CI [9.5, 17.7]). Psychological IPV was the most prevalent type of abuse, in keeping with findings from the general population. There were no studies on sexual IPV victimization among male personnel. Evidence for the impact of military factors, such as deployment or rank, on IPV victimization was conflicting. Prevalence rates varied widely, influenced by methodological variation among studies. The review highlighted the lack of research into male IPV victimization in the military and the relative absence of research into impact of IPV. It is recommended that future research disaggregates results by gender and considers the impact of IPV, in order that gender differences can be uncovered.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) in the military has tended to focus on military personnel as perpetrators and civilian partners/spouses as victims. However, studies have found high levels of IPV victimization among military personnel. This article systematically reviews studies of the prevalence of self-reported IPV victimization among military populations.
METHODS
Searches of four electronic databases (Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) were supplemented by reference list screening. Meta-analyses of the available data were performed, where possible, using the random effects model.
RESULTS
This review included 28 studies with a combined sample of 69,808 military participants. Overall, similar or higher prevalence rates of physical IPV victimization were found among males compared to females and this was supported by a meta-analytic subgroup analysis: pooled prevalence of 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] = [17.4, 24.6]) among males and 13.6% among females (95% CI [9.5, 17.7]). Psychological IPV was the most prevalent type of abuse, in keeping with findings from the general population. There were no studies on sexual IPV victimization among male personnel. Evidence for the impact of military factors, such as deployment or rank, on IPV victimization was conflicting.
DISCUSSION
Prevalence rates varied widely, influenced by methodological variation among studies. The review highlighted the lack of research into male IPV victimization in the military and the relative absence of research into impact of IPV. It is recommended that future research disaggregates results by gender and considers the impact of IPV, in order that gender differences can be uncovered.

Identifiants

pubmed: 29911508
doi: 10.1177/1524838018782206
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

586-609

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : PDF-2015-08-113
Pays : United Kingdom

Auteurs

Katherine Sparrow (K)

Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.

Hannah Dickson (H)

Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.

Jamie Kwan (J)

Department of Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, London, United Kingdom.

Louise Howard (L)

David Goldberg Centre, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.

Nicola Fear (N)

Department of Military Mental Health, Psychological Medicine, Weston Education Centre, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Deirdre MacManus (D)

Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences Department, King's College London, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH