IV. View from the states: surveillance of intimate partner violence
Improving surveillance of intimate partner violence by use of multiple data sources

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(00)00237-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem in the United States. Estimates of incidence and prevalence vary widely, depending on the data source used. Combining information from different sources can enhance our understanding of IPV.

Methods: In this paper, we used 1998 data from the Rhode Island (RI) Department of Health Violence Against Women Public Health Surveillance System to describe the prevalence of IPV reported to police, the demographic characteristics and help-seeking efforts of women reporting IPV, and characteristics of IPV incidents. We used data from the 1998 RI Department of Health Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey to examine associations between health care use and health outcomes of victims and nonvictims of IPV, and to explore the correlates of IPV. We also discuss the use of both narrow and broad definitions of IPV.

Results: Our findings show that the definition of IPV and the source used to identify IPV victims can produce a markedly different picture of IPV victims, and that combining information from different data sources can enhance our understanding of IPV. An important finding for health care providers is that IPV victims do not appear to be significantly different from nonvictims in their access to and utilization of routine health care, and that more than 60% of victims at highest risk for injury reported seeing a health care provider because of IPV.

Conclusions: Our findings underscore the importance of health care providers addressing IPV and its consequences among their patients.

Section snippets

Study population

This study is based on 1997 and 1998 data from RI’s VAWPHS and the 1998 RI BRFSS survey. Analyses of VAWPHS data were limited to the 2399 women aged 18 to 54 for whom there was at least one IPV incident reported by police in 1998. If a woman had more than one incident of physical or sexual assault reported, only the first (index) incident was included in the analyses. Analyses of BRFSS data were restricted to women aged 18 to 54, as women aged ≥18 experience the most serious consequences of IPV

VAWPHS

According to 1998 VAWPHS police report data, the prevalence rates of IPV for women aged 18–59 ranged across census tracts from .01 to 17 per 100 women. The highest rates (5.01–17/100) were generally concentrated in urban areas of the state and in census tracts with seasonal dwellings (Figure 1). Census tracts with the next highest rates (1.01–5.00 per 100 women) were generally located in rural areas.

The number of domestic violence incidents reported by the VAWPHS increased from 5145 in 1997 to

BRFSS group 1 vs group 2

Of the 808 women surveyed in the 1998 RI BRFSS, 3.5% were victims under our narrow definition of IPV (Group 1), and 9.5% were victims under our broader definition, which included controlling behavior, threats, and fear for safety (Group 2). In BRFSS Group 1, 45.5% of the women were aged 18–24 compared to 36.5% of women in Group 2; 83.7% of women in Group 1 and 84.1% in Group 2 were white; and 55.8% of the women in Group 1 and 49.5% of women in Group 2 had incomes below $50,000. Women in Group 2

Discussion

The use of 1998 RI BRFSS data in combination with VAWPHS data from 1997 and 1998 provided an opportunity to identify and characterize distinct groups of victims of IPV. Our BRFSS prevalence rates of 3.5% to 9.5% for IPV in the previous 12 months are somewhat low relative to the rates of 5% to 13% reported by other population-based surveys.6, 9, 19, 20, 21, 22 Our rates are likely to be underestimates because of the low response rate,15 the short data collection period (7 months),

Conclusions

The definition of IPV and the source used to identify victims can generate a markedly different picture. Combining information from data sources can enhance our understanding of IPV. Police records provide incident-specific information including geographic location, involvement of alcohol or drugs, weapon use, exposure of children to violence, and victim injury. Surveys can provide information on IPV occurring over a period of time that may or may not be reported to police, including IPV that

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Cooperative Agreement U17/CCU111076. We thank Jeffrey Hiris of Brown University and Jana Hesser of the RI Department of Public Health for their statistical advice during the preparation of this manuscript. We thank Janice Fontes of the RI Department of Public Health for her invaluable help in using the 1998 RI Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey, and Sarah Coburn for preparation of Figure 1.

References (25)

  • J Campbell et al.

    Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children

    Psych Clinics North America

    (1997)
  • S Plichta

    The effects of women abuse on health statusa literature review

    Women’s Health Issues

    (1992)
  • Greenfeld LA, Rand MR, Craven D, et al. Violence by intimates: analysis of data on crimes by current or former spouses,...
  • R Acierno et al.

    Health impact of interpersonal violence. 1Prevalence rates, case identification, and risk factors for sexual assault, physical assault, and domestic violence in men and women

    Behav Med

    (1997)
  • E Stark et al.

    Violence among intimatesan epidemiological review

  • Bachman, R, Saltzman LE. Violence against women: estimates from the redesigned survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department...
  • M.A Strauss et al.

    Physical violence in American familiesrisk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families

    (1990)
  • M.A Strauss et al.

    Behind closed doorsviolence in the American family

    (1980)
  • Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence against women: findings from the National...
  • D.H Currie

    Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts?

  • D Kurtz

    Old problems and new directions in the study of violence against women

  • L.E Saltzman et al.

    CDC’s family and intimate violence prevention teambasing programs on science

    J Am Med Wom Assoc

    (1996)
  • Cited by (30)

    • REPRINT OF: Physical and Mental Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence for Men and Women

      2021, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Despite the increasingly well-documented literature on the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in clinical1–15 and population-based studies16–27 and its impact on mental health,28–42 little epidemiologic research has focused on its long-term, physical health consequences,43,44 particularly among male victims.

    • Child maltreatment in Missouri: Combining data for public health surveillance

      2004, American Journal of Preventive Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Combining more than one source of data is a common strategy when initiating public health surveillance, and is usually done to compensate for the limitations of using a single data source, such as incomplete case ascertainment.8,9 Use of multiple data sources has enhanced surveillance of injuries,10–12 intimate partner violence,13 occupational conditions,14 and environmental exposures.9 In September of 2001, the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) entered into cooperative agreements with state health departments to conduct surveillance of child maltreatment among children aged <10 years.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text