BMC public health · 2026
Disability and intimate partner violence in England: Gender stratified analyses of a probability sample survey.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hashemi Ladan, Manzur Hannah, Bunce Annie, McManus Sally
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: No prior random probability sample survey spans experience of all forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) among people with different types of impairment in England. This study aimed to compare the 12-month prevalence of four types of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse) for people with and without four types of impairment (physical, sensory, learning impairments, and experiencing difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs)), taking account of variations by gender.
METHODS: This study used data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey that covered the household population of England aged 16 years and older. Data was analysed on 7546 respondents (4488 women and 3058 men). Logistic regression was conducted and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were reported separately for men and women.
RESULTS: Disabled women reported significantly higher rates of psychological (AOR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.31-2.98) and sexual IPV (AOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.55-3.91) than non-disabled women. No significant association was found for physical IPV. Women with a learning impairment reported the highest prevalence for almost all types of IPV. Women reporting restricted ADLs were at higher risk of experiencing economic abuse (AOR = 2.88, 95% CI = 1.33-6.23). Disabled men did not have a higher risk of experiencing any forms of IPV compared with non-disabled men.
CONCLUSION: While violence can contribute to onset of some forms of disability, our findings suggest that disability may also enhance the risk of IPV for disabled women, particularly for women with a learning impairment. Investment in targeted violence prevention programs specifically for disabled women is warranted.
METHODS: This study used data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey that covered the household population of England aged 16 years and older. Data was analysed on 7546 respondents (4488 women and 3058 men). Logistic regression was conducted and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were reported separately for men and women.
RESULTS: Disabled women reported significantly higher rates of psychological (AOR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.31-2.98) and sexual IPV (AOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.55-3.91) than non-disabled women. No significant association was found for physical IPV. Women with a learning impairment reported the highest prevalence for almost all types of IPV. Women reporting restricted ADLs were at higher risk of experiencing economic abuse (AOR = 2.88, 95% CI = 1.33-6.23). Disabled men did not have a higher risk of experiencing any forms of IPV compared with non-disabled men.
CONCLUSION: While violence can contribute to onset of some forms of disability, our findings suggest that disability may also enhance the risk of IPV for disabled women, particularly for women with a learning impairment. Investment in targeted violence prevention programs specifically for disabled women is warranted.