Brief report
were significantly lower among women (OR =0.63; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.82) compared with men, and significantly higher among those with a job/income change due to the pandemic (OR=1.63; 95%CI 1.17 to 2.27), compared with those with no change in job status/income. Among the respondents that screened positive for victimisa- tion, 54% stated the victimisation stayed the same during the COVID-19 pandemic, while 17% stated victimisation worsened and 30% stated victimisation improved (table 2). The risk of IPV worsening was 4.38 (95% CI 1.27 to 15.10) times higher among physical victimisation compared with non-physical victimisation and 2.31 times higher among sexual victimisation compared to non-sexual victimisation. The risk of IPV getting better was 2.46 times higher (95% CI 1.47 to 13.14) among physical victimisa- tion compared with non-physical victimisation. DISCUSSION This is the first study to analyse self-reported victimisation, and specifically changes in severity and type of abuse, during early stages of the pandemic in the USA. The prevalence of IPV overall was slightly higher in the study compared with the general popu- lation (18% compared with 12%). 13 Interestingly, the prevalence of victimisation among men was higher in this study (23%) compared with the general population (11%), while the preva- lence of victimisation among women was lower (16%) compared with the general population (25%). 13 This discrepancy may be due to gender preference or sexuality, as IPV victimisation is higher among sexual minority couples compared with hetero- sexual relationships. 14 15 Unfortunately, though, gender prefer- ence was not collected in this survey. Interestingly, and contrary to our hypothesis, the majority of victimisation stayed the same throughout the beginning of the pandemic at stay-at-home policies. Among participants that did report change in victimisation, the severity of victimisation was more likely to get better during the COVID-19 pandemic compared with worse. This discordant finding may be due to three hypotheses. First, the majority of IPV is through controlling behaviour. 16 With stay-at-home policies implemented, we can imagine that perpetrators may have more control over victims and more knowledge about whereabouts, thus running into less conflict with partners. Second, given this sample was recruited through social media, by default, the participants must have had access to a computer or smartphone and internet. It is possible that the most severe of victims do not have these freedoms and so were systematically missed in our sample. Third, the study population was majority NH White. While victimisation does not discriminate, some past literature has shown blacks having higher rates of victimisation than whites. 17 It is important to note that among the types of victimisa- tion, physical victimisation was most likely to change during the pandemic, as it both significantly improved and worsened among victims. This may be due to perpetrators wanting to avoid hospitals, so ensuring victimisation is less physical than normal. Moreover, self-reported sexual violence significantly worsened among victims, which is likely reflective of spending more hours of the day at home. However, more research should explore these interesting findings and hypotheses. Limitations Results should be considered in light of three limitations. First, recruitment was through a social media network, conve- nience sample leading to limited generalisability. Further, we cannot calculate the true response rate (how many eligible
Figure 1 PRISM Diagram for Study Population. IPV, intimate partner violence.
Sociodemographic variables included age (continuous), geographic region (West, Northeast, Midwest, South), sex at birth (male, female), race/ethnicity (white Non-Hispanic (NH), other NH, Hispanic), annual household income (<US$80 000; US$80–150000, >US$150 000) and number of children under the age of 18 (0, 1, 2, 3+). COVID19-related behaviours included job status/income change (yes/no), self-reported change in alcohol use (more/less/ same/do not drink) and working from home (yes/no) since the COVID-19 pandemic. Statistical analyses Univariate (eg, tabulations, percentages, means and SD) was used to describe the study sample. Bivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between sociodemographics and COVID-19-related changes (independent variables) and IPV victimisation (dependent variable). Bivariate multinom- inal regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between victimisation type, sociodemographics and COVID- 19-related changes (independent variables) and change in IPV severity (dependent variable). If data were missing, participants were dropped from bivariate analyses. Analyses were conducted using Stata V.14.3. RESULTS Eighteen per cent of respondents screened positive for IPV (n=319), with the majority of victims experiencing insulting (97%) or screaming (86%; table 1). The odds of victimisation
Jetelina KK, et al . Inj Prev 2021; 27 :93–97. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043831
94
Powered by FlippingBook