Individual and Interpersonal risk factors in Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)
G. K. Pandey*
Abstract
A study was undertaken to define the extent of interpersonal violence and identify individual and interpersonal risk factors ofIPV. A sample of 751households was enrolled randomly. From each household one currently married woman in the age range 15 –44 years,living with the spouse was chosen, who was also the respondent. A pretested and predesigned structured interview schedules covering various personal factors of perpetrator and inter personal factors between spouses was administered. History of violence in last one year was elicited. Data was collected byfemale investigators. Proportion of violence was calculated for each study variable and statistical significance tested using Chi square test. Overall prevalence of IPV in the study was 17.6 percent.
Study identified various risk factors of IPV. Among Among the individual factors of perpetrator lower level of education (24.1 %), un employment (53.9%),addiction to alcohol (30.3 %) and habit of visiting red light areas (100.0%) were found to be significant. Among the interpersonal factors, lower socioeconomic status (22.3 %), limiting access to family and friends (50.0 %) and age difference of 5 years (23.2 %) were found to be important. Study found no relation between birth of male child and violence.
The study identifiedboth individual and relationship factors as markers of violence, which are deep routed in socio-cultural settings. This necessitates a multi-sectoral approach involving health, social support services, law enforcing agencies and religious groups for any intervention program to be effective against IPV.
------
* Professor & Head , Department of Public Health Administration, All India Institute of Hygiene and Public Health, 110 C.R. Avenue, Kolkata,700073
Phone Res: 033-24943326, Off: 22418717, 22412860 (Extn 209) Fax : 033-22418717
Mobile : 9433048478 Email :
Introduction
One of the most common forms of violence against women is that, performed by a husband or an intimate partner (Crowell & Burgess, 1996;Butchart & Brown,!991).World community of late has accepted its universality and aptly recognized it as a violation of human rights, a major public health problem, and a global epidemic (WHO,2002). Violence against women is a manifestation of complex interplay of various personal, social, cultural and situational factors, which vary from setting to setting. (Jewkes, Levin, & Penn-kekana, 2002).
Domestic violence in India stems from a cultural bias against women who challenge their husband's right to control their behaviour and often linked with masculinity and manhood of husband (Majumdar, 2003). A few studies that have addressed this issue indicate that physical abuse of Indian women varies considerably, ranging from 5.8 percent to 76 percent (IIPS,2000; Mahajan & Madhurima,1995; Jejeebhoy,1998).
Rapid pace of economic development and migration of people to urban areas is forcing many to live in slums. Population of slum dwellers in and around large cities like kolkata is on the rise. Reliable data from each setting are important not only for planning and monitoring purposes, but also for advocacy. Community based surveys are better suited to determine a more moderate form of relationship violence where continuing frustration and anger occasionally erupt into physical aggression (WHO, 2002).
Present enquiry has attempted to look into the issue of physical violence from women’s perspective.
The objectives of present investigation are to:
(1)Define the extent of domestic violence against currently married women, in 15- 45 years age group, in a slum locality of Kolkata.
(2)Identify factors in the individual and interpersonal relationships between the perpetrator and the victim that are associated with domestic violence.
Methodology
Study area
Present study was undertaken in a slum located in south-west of Kolkata having a population of 124,000. Majority of men are engaged in menial jobs, mostly on daily wage basis. Women are mostly housewives, a few works as housemaids. Alcohol and drug abuse are common among men.
Study Design
Cross sectional household survey
Study population
Currently married women in the age range 15-45 years, living with their spouses.
Sample
Sampling frame consisted of the list of households obtained from Urban Health Center, Chetla-a government owned health facility providing health care to the population. Total number of households in the locality was 24,810. Sampling unit was a household.
A representative sample of 751 households was obtained, using simple random technique, assuming prevalence of violence to be 37 percent (Population Reports 1999) and allowable error of 10 percent. From each household, one eligible woman was enrolled for the study. Women who were widowed or separated or whose husbands were away for last one month were excluded.
Respondents were the women that were enrolled for the study. Interview was held in the household after obtaining the informed consent of the subjects and assurance of confidentiality
Interviewers were three women scholars enrolled for the post graduate Diploma in Public Health (D.P.H) course at All India Institute of Hygiene & Public Health, Kolkata
Data collection
Predesigned, pretested, structured interview schedule were used for data collection.
Data collection began in October 2004 and was completed in six months.
Data analysis
For each variable, proportions were calculated and significance tested using Chi-square test. Epi info V 6.04 was used for data compilation and analysis.
Results
In a representative sample of 751 currently married women in a slum locality of Kolkata 132 women confessed to have experienced physical violence in past 12 months with a prevalence of 17.6 %.
As depicted in table 1, among the individual factors of husband low level of education (χ2 = 19.90), unemployment (χ2 = 37.20), use of alcohol and other psychotropic substances (χ2 = 38.03) and visiting red light areas (χ2 =87.00) were found to be associated with higher risk of violence. Whereas age and religion of the male partner had no link with the violence inflicted on the female partner.
Analysis of interpersonal factors between the partners (table 2) shows that low socio economic status with family income of IRS 3000, age difference of five years or less between the partners (χ2 =10.36) and limited access to family and friends (χ2 = 113.93) were associated with increased risk of violence to their female partners. Whereas birth of a male child didn’t has any effect on the violence.
In conclusion, women’s perspective on domestic violence lends further support to many of the risk factors already described, besides identifying a couple of new factors like narrow age difference, limited access to family and friends and visit to red light areas in the setting of slums.
Adverse socio-economic conditions, as reflected by low education and income levels and un employment create a feeling of low self esteem and insecurity which find expression in deviant behaviours like alcoholism and visiting red light areas. Thus violence against wives is a manifestation of compensatory behaviour to make up for husband’s lack of power in other arenas of marriage.
Table 1: Prevalence of domestic violence and personal factors of perpetrator
Personal factors of perpetrator / Prevalence of IPV / χ2 / p valueAge in years (n = 751)
- 20-29 (n=151)
- 30-39 (n=388)
- 40 (n=212)
74 (19.1)
35 (16.1) / 1.34 / 0.51202415
Education (n = 751)
- Up to Primary (n = 357)
- Secondary and above (n = 394)
46 (11.7) / 19.90 / 0.0000082
Employment (n = 751)
- Un employed (n = 39)
- Employed (n = 712)
111 (15.6) / 37.30 / 0.0000000
Substance abuse (n = 751)
- None (n = 364)
- Tobacco only (n = 156)
- Alcohol and Others (n = 231)
22 (14.1)
70 (30.3) / 38.03 / 0.00000001
Visiting red light area (n = 751)
- No (n = 534)
- Can’t say (n = 206)
- Yes (n = 11)
61 (29.6)
11 (100.0) / 87.00 / 0.0000000
Religion (n = 751)
- Hindu (n=614)
- Muslim (n=137)
27 (19.7) / 0.52 / 0.4688058
Figures in parentheses denote percentages
Table 2: Relationship factors and Prevalence of domestic violence
Relationship factors / Prevalence of IPV / χ2 / p valueFamily Income in IRS per month
- 3000 (n = 529)
- >3000 (n = 222)
14 (6.3) / 27.60 / 0.0000001
Age difference between spouses (in years)
- 5 (n=233)
- 6-10 (n=428)
- 10 and above (n=90)
77 (17.9)
7 (7.8) / 10.36 / 0.00562438
Access to family and friends
- Limited (n = 130)
- Not limited (n = 621)
67 (10.8) / 113.93 / 0.00000000
Birth of male child
- No issue (n = 50)
- No (n = 176)
- Yes (n = 525)
33 (18.8)
95 (18.0) / 3.43 / 0.17996391
Figures in parentheses denote percentages
References
- Butchart A, Brown D. (1991). Non-fatal injuries due to interpersonal violence in Johannesburg-Soweto: incidence, determinants and consequences. Forensic Science International, 52:35-51
- Crowell N, Burgess AW. (1996). Understanding violence against women. Washington, DC, National Academy Press.
- International Institute of Population Sciences (IIPS). (2000). Rapid Household Survey, Phase I,under Reproductive and Child Health Project-India, Mumbai: IIPS
- Jejeebhoy S J. (1998). Association between wife beating and foetal and infant death: Impressions from a survey in rural India. Stud Fam Plann, 29:300-08
- Jewkes R, Levin J, Penn-kekana L. (2002). Risk factors for domestic violence: findings from a South African cross-sectional study. Social Science & Medicine, 55: 1603-17.
- Mahajan A, Madhurima O. (1995). Family Violence and Abuse in India, New –Delhi, Deep and Deep Publication.
- Majumdar S. (2003). In India Domestic Violence rises with Education. Retrieved October 26, 2006, from
- Population Reports (1999): Ending violence against women, 27(4):
- WHO (2002). World Report on Violence and Health. World Health Organization, Geneva.