Background Research on women''s responses to intimate partner violence (IPV) has largely been limited to women who have been exposed to severe physical violence with scarce generalisation. This study aimed to analyse how Spanish abused women from different backgrounds and with different IPV characteristics respond to violence.
Method Women experiencing IPV before the previous year (1469) were selected from a large cross-sectional national survey of adult women recruited during 2006–7 among female patients seeking medical care for whatever reason in primary healthcare services. The outcome variables were women's responses to IPV and the predictor variables were personal and social resources profiles and characteristics of the abuse (type, duration and women's age at onset). Stepwise logistic regression models were fitted.
Results 87.5% of abused women took some kind of action to overcome IPV. Significant differences on personal and social profile and type and duration of the abuse were detected between the three strategic responses: distancing, in process and inhibition. The probability of a woman responding with a distancing strategy (seeking outside help or leaving temporarily) is almost three times greater if she is employed, was young when the abuse began, had experienced physical and psychological abuse and when the abuse was under 5 years.
Conclusions The results of this study show that personal and social resources and the specific circumstances of the abuse should be taken into account to understand women's responses to IPV. Well-validated interventions targeted at abused women's needs and the circumstances of IPV remain a priority.
- Domestic violence
- mental health DI
- service provision
- spouse abuse
- violence RB
- women CG
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This study was partly supported with funding from the Health Institute Carlos III (1/06-36) (Ministry of Health, Spain) and Feder Funds (CTS-177).
Competing interests None.
Patient consent Obtained.
Ethics approval This study was approved by the ethics committee of the University of Valencia.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.