IV. View from the states: surveillance of intimate partner violenceImproving surveillance of intimate partner violence by use of multiple data sources
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)
- et al.
Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children
Psych Clinics North America
(1997) 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,...
- 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) - et al.
Violence among intimatesan epidemiological review
- Bachman, R, Saltzman LE. Violence against women: estimates from the redesigned survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department...
- et al.
Physical violence in American familiesrisk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families
(1990) - 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...
Violent men or violent women? Whose definition counts?
Old problems and new directions in the study of violence against women
CDC’s family and intimate violence prevention teambasing programs on science
J Am Med Wom Assoc
Cited by (30)
REPRINT OF: Physical and Mental Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence for Men and Women
2021, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation 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.
Women's experiences with violence: A national study
2007, Women's Health IssuesConversational silence, coercion, equality: The role of language in influencing who gets identified as abused
2006, Social Science and MedicineChild maltreatment in Missouri: Combining data for public health surveillance
2004, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation 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.