Skip to main content
Download PDF

Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea

BMC Women's Health volume 23, Article number: 48 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Introduction

Evidence suggests that childhood exposure to interparental violence increases the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) experience or perpetration in adolescence or adulthood. However, it is unclear if exposure to interparental violence increases the risk of IPV among women in Papua New Guinea. This study, therefore, seeks to fill this gap in the literature by examining the association between childhood exposure to interparental violence and IPV among women in Papua New Guinea.

Methods

We used data from the most recent 2016–18 Papua New Guinea Demographic and Health Survey. We included 3,512 women in our analyses. Past-year experience of IPV was the outcome variable in this study. Exposure to interparental violence was the key explanatory variable. We used a multilevel binary logistic regression to examine the association between exposure to interparental violence and IPV.

Results

We found a higher probability of experiencing IPV among women exposed to interparental violence [aOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.86] relative to women who were not exposed. Furthermore, we found that women living in rural areas had a lower likelihood of IPV experience [aOR = O.50, 95% CI = 0.32, 0.80] compared to those in urban settings. Finally, a greater odd of IPV experience was found among women staying in the Highlands Region [aOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.96] compared to those staying in the Southern Region.

Conclusion

Exposure to interparental violence was found to be significantly associated with IPV among women in Papua New Guinea. The findings of this study suggest the need for proven operational strategies to reduce IPV, such as improving anti-IPV laws in Papua New Guinea. We recommend the development and implementation of intercession strategies to reduce the experience and justification of violence among women exposed to interparental violence. In addition, health professionals should implement counseling and health education initiatives to tackle the consequences of IPV on women's well-being.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV), a serious public health problem, is defined as physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, or psychological aggression (including coercive acts) by a current or former intimate partner, whether or not the person is a spouse [1, 2]. Experience of IPV is prevalent among individuals across the diverse gender spectrum, including males, females, transgender and nonbinary individuals [3]. Nevertheless, the prevalence of IPV is disproportionately higher among people who self-identify as female compared to people who self-identify as male, with further evidence indicating the likelihood of experiencing IPV to be higher among people who identify as female than people who identify as male [3, 4].

Interparental violence, on the other hand, is violence that occurs between parents [5]. Exposure to interparental violence has mostly been defined as the situation where children see, hear, involve, or experience the aftermath of physical, sexual, or emotional violence that occurs between their caregivers [6]. Exposure to interparental violence during youthful age has detrimental effects on the individual [5, 6]. However, evidence on the prevalence of interparental violence exposure remains scarce in Papua New Guinea (PNG).

The experience of IPV has a huge negative impact on women’s health and well-being. Women who experience IPV report a higher likelihood of medical, gynaecological, and stress-related symptoms compared to women who do not experience IPV [7, 8]. Stress due to the experience of IPV among women has been reported to activate neuroendocrine and immune system pathways, which may increase the risk of chronic conditions, including autoimmune disorders and cancer [9]. Women of reproductive age who experience IPV present with poor reproductive and sexual health, including unintended pregnancy, Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and other sexually transmitted infections [10,11,12]. Factors underlying these poor reproductive and sexual health outcomes include forced or coerced sex, a partner’s refusal to use condoms, and other forms of reproductive coercion, such as pressuring a woman to become pregnant against her wishes and sabotaging contraception (breaking or removing condoms during sex) [13]. IPV is also associated with increased risk factors of obstetrical and gynaecologic complications, pregnancy-associated death, preterm birth, low birth weight, peripartum depression, and substance use [14].

IPV has been reported to have an impact on women’s mental health, which translate to healthcare costs and disease burden among women [15]. IPV increases a woman’s likelihood of experiencing depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, suicidal behaviour, and substance use behaviour [16,17,18]. The physical health impact of IPV on women includes injuries such as contusions, lacerations, and fractures [19, 20].

The prevalence of IPV, as well as its associated burden, is highest in most low- and -middle-income countries [21, 22], and PNG is noted to be one of the countries with the highest prevalence, as well as the burden of IPV [23, 24]. The underlying factors that result in the high prevalence of IPV in PNG are the strict gender roles and gender relations in which IPV is used as a means of keeping women in their place and giving men the decision-making power in the relationship [25, 26]. Several other factors are associated with an increased risk of IPV. Some of these factors include substance use, stress, low level of education, ineffective communication in the relationship, unequal power relation, unemployment, gender inequitable masculinities, and harmful attitudes to gender relations that result in female disempowerment and marginalization [27, 28].

Evidence suggests that children's exposure to interparental violence increases their risk of being victims of IPV or perpetrating violence in adolescence or adulthood [29]; however, it is unclear if exposure to interparental violence increases the risk of experiencing IPV among women in PNG. This study, therefore, seeks to fill this gap in literature accordingly, and contribute to efforts toward addressing the high prevalence of IPV in PNG.

In assessing the association between exposure to interparental violence and IPV experience, we used a multilevel logistic regression model, where we considered how individual and community-level factors interact to explain the association between exposure to interparental violence and IPV experience. Given the high prevalence of IPV in PNG [30], we hypothesize that childhood exposure to interparental violence is associated with IPV among women in PNG.

Methods

Data source and study design

We used data from the 2016–18 PNG Demographic and Health Survey (PNG DHS). The PNG DHS is a nationally representative survey conducted periodically to provide an update on the demographic and health situation in PNG [31]. The 2016–18 PNG DHS is the first official DHS conducted in PNG in collaboration with the worldwide Demographic and Health Surveys Program, which is a global programme coordinated by Inner City Fund (ICF), based in Rockville, Maryland, USA [31]. The PNG DHS employed a descriptive cross-sectional design in collecting data from the respondents on several indicators such as domestic violence and other related health issues [31]. The dataset used can be accessed at https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Papua-New-Guinea_Standard-DHS_2017.cfm?flag=1. We relied on the Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guidelines in drafting this paper [32].

Sampling technique and sample size

The PNG DHS employed a two-stage cluster sampling technique in recruiting the respondents for the survey. The sampling method was carried out in two stages. All the provinces were stratified into urban and rural areas and this yielded forty-three sampling strata, except for the National Capital District, which has no rural areas. In the first stage, 800 census units were selected with probability proportional to the census unit size. In the second stage, a fixed number of 24 households per cluster were selected with an equal probability of systematic selection from the newly created household listing, resulting in a total sample size of approximately 19,200 households. Detailed sampling procedure has been highlighted in the literature [31]. In this study, we included 3,512 women with complete observations on all variables of interest.

Variables

Past-year experience of IPV was the outcome variable in this study. IPV variables were derived from the domestic violence model, which used a modified version of the conflict tactics scale to ask questions [33, 34]. The questions used to assess physical, emotional, and sexual violence have been published elsewhere in the literature [35,36,37,38,39]. The response options to each of the questions were “never” “often” “sometimes” and “yes, but not in the last 12 months”. For this study’s purpose and regarding literature [35,36,37], we recoded those whose response option was either “never” and “yes, but not in the last 12 months” as “no” and was assigned a value “zero (0)”. The remaining response options “often” and “sometimes” were coded as “yes” and labelled as “1”. We utilised the numeric labels “0 = no” and “1 = yes” in the final analysis.

Exposure to interparental violence was the key explanatory variable in the study. This variable was measured using the question “As far as you know, did your father ever beat your mother?”. The response options to this question were “no”, “yes”, and “don’t know”. Those who answered "no" or "don't know" were classified as "Not exposed" to interparental violence, whereas those who answered "Yes" were classified as "Exposed”. The reclassified responses were further coded as “0 = not exposed” and “1 = exposed”. This categorization was informed by literature that utilised the DHS dataset [40, 41].

We included 15 variables as covariates in the study. These variables were selected based on their association with IPV from previous studies [40,41,42,43,44,45] and their availability in the DHS dataset. The variables consisted of the age of women, educational level, marital status, current working status, exposure to mass media (television, radio, and newspaper or magazine), parity, wealth index, place of residence, region, community socioeconomic status, and community literacy level. We maintained the existing coding for current working status, wealth index, and place of residence in the final analysis as found in the DHS. Age was recoded into “15–24”, “25–34″, and “35 and above”. Educational level was recoded into “no education”, “primary”, and “secondary or higher”. Exposure to mass media was coded into “none”, “one”, and “two or more”. Parity was coded as “0 birth”, “1 birth”, “2 births”, “3 births”, and “4 or more births”. Both community socioeconomic status and literacy level were coded as “low”, “medium”, and high”.

Statistical analyses

We used Stata software version 16.0 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) throughout the analysis. First, we employed percentages to summarise the results of the prevalence of IPV (Fig. 1). Pearson chi-square test was later used to examine the relationship between the explanatory variables and IPV (Table 1). Subsequently, we used a multilevel binary logistic regression to examine the association between exposure to interparental violence and IPV, controlling for the covariates (Table 2). Five models were built to examine the association between interparental violence and IPV. Before the regression analysis, a multicollinearity test was conducted using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The results showed that the minimum, maximum, and mean VIFs were 1.02, 3.95, and 2.08, respectively. Hence, there was no evidence of multicollinearity among the variables studied. The first model (Model O), which was an empty model with no explanatory factors or covariates, indicated the variation in IPV ascribed to the primary sampling units (PSUs). Model I contained only the key explanatory variable, whereas Model II included the key explanatory variable and individual-level covariates. Model III contained the key explanatory variable and the community level variables. The final model (Model IV) consisted of the key explanatory variable and all the covariates. The results of the regression analysis were presented in a tabular form using crude odds ratio (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical significance was set at p< 0.05. Furthermore, each of the five models incorporated both fixed and random effects. Fixed effects represented the association between the exposure to interparental violence and/or covariates and IPV, whereas random-effects denoted the measure of variation in the IPV dependent on primary sampling units measured by intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC) . The Akaike's Information Criterion (AIC) was used to measure model fitness. The multilevel regression models were run using Stata's "melogit" function. The "svyset" command was used to correct for disproportionate sampling and non-response, and weighting was done to account for the complex nature of DHS data. All the analyses were weighted according to the DHS guidelines.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prevalence of IPV among women in Papua New Guinea

Full size image
Table 1 Distribution of intimate partner violence across exposure to interparental violence and the covariates
Full size table
Table 2 Association between exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea
Full size table

Ethical consideration

Because this study used publically available data, no ethical approval was required. Further information regarding the data and ethical norms can be accessed at http://goo.gl/ny8T6X. We carried out this study in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations concerning the use of DHS dataset for publication.

Results

Prevalence of intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea

Figure 1 presents the prevalence of IPV among women in PNG. The overall prevalence of IPV among women was 55.3% [53.6–56.9]. The prevalence of physical, emotional, and sexual violence observed in this study were 45.6, 44.2, and 23.9%, respectively.

Distribution of intimate partner violence across the explanatory variable and covariates

Table 1 displays the distribution of IPV across the explanatory variable and covariates. The results indicated substantial differences in IPV across the exposure to interparental violence, women’s age, exposure to mass media, and place of residence at p< 0.05. Particularly, IPV was found to be prevalent among women exposed to interparental violence [62.0% (57.1–66.7)] relative to women not exposed interparental violence [49.4% (45.8–53.0)]. IPV was highest among women aged 15–19 [61.9% (56.5–67.0)] but lowest among those aged 35–49 [48.5% (44.0–53.1)]. In terms of exposure to mass media, the highest proportion of IPV [64.4% (59.1–69.4)] was observed among women who were exposed to two or more mass media whereas those who had no exposure to mass media recorded the lowest proportion [49.4% (45.7–53.2)]. With the place of residence, IPV was higher among urban women [64.8 (58.3–70.8)] compared to rural women [54.1% (50.3–57.9)]. Finally, apart from exposure to interparental violence, maternal age, exposure to mass media, and place of residence which were found to be significantly associated with IPV in this analysis, the rest of the variables were insignificantly related to IPV (see Table 1).

Mixed effect analysis of association between exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence

Fixed effects (measures of association) results

Model III of Table 2 presents the results of the association between interparental violence exposure and IPV among women in PNG, controlling for the covariates. We found a higher probability of experiencing IPV among women exposed to interparental violence [aOR = 1.45, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.86] relative to women who were not exposed. For the covariates, we observed that women who were living in rural settings had a lower likelihood of IPV experience [aOR = O.50, 95% CI = 0.32, 0.80] relative to women living in urban settings. Finally, in terms of region, greater odds of experiencing IPV was found among women staying in the Highlands Region [aOR = 1.44, 95% CI = 1.06, 1.96] relative to those staying in the Southern Region (see Table 2).

Random effects (measures of variation) results

As shown in Table 2, in the empty model, there were substantial variations in the likelihood of IPV across the clustering of the primary sampling units (PSUs) (σ2 = 0.83, 95% CI 0.61–1.13). The empty model showed that 20.1% of the total variance in IPV was attributed to the between-cluster variation of characteristics (ICC = 0.201). The between-cluster variations decreased marginally in Model I, from 20.1% in the empty model to 19.7% in the model with only the key explanatory variable (exposure to interparental violence). From Model I, the ICC declined further to 19.4% (ICC = 0.194) in the model that controlled for the individual-level covariates (Model II) and reduced further to 18.6% in the model that controlled for community-level covariates (Model III). In the final model, the ICC value increased to 19.1%. This result shows that the disparities in the probability that IPV would occur could be ascribed to the differences in the grouping of the sampling units. With the lowest log-likelihood ratio (-2053.533) and the highest BIC value (4327.492), the final model which had the key explanatory variable and controlled for both the individual and community level variables was chosen as the best fit for predicting the occurrence of IPV.

Discussion

The current study examined the association between exposure to interparental violence and IPV among women in PNG. The overall prevalence of IPV was 55.3%. The prevalence found in this study is similar to those of other studies conducted in Asia–Pacific countries including Bangladesh [46] and Afghanistan [47]. However, the finding in this current study is higher than those found in prior studies, which include 39% in India [48], 40% in Pakistan [49], and 45.3% in Bangladesh [50], but lower than 82.7% in rural Bangladesh [51], and 67% in the Gambia [52]. The high prevalence of IPV found in this research may be a result of the country's rigid conventional attitudes and gender standards, as well as poor access to public health education, justice, and social services, which have been reported to influence IPV perpetration [47, 53, 54]. Differences in cultural and socioeconomic dimensions could have had a profound impact on our findings.

Although rates varied depending on the type of abuse, IPV was relatively common in PNG. Generally, physical violence was found in the present study to be the most prevalent form of IPV (45.6%), followed by emotional violence (44.2%), and then sexual violence (23.9%). This tendency was largely consistent with other Asia–Pacific studies on IPV [55]. The extensive history of violent conflicts in PNG, not only affected and included a sizeable section of the current adult population but also left a persistent negative imprint on the inhabitants. This could have influenced the prevalence of physical, emotional, and sexual violence among women, as women usually become the vulnerable populace. Evidence also suggests that men who have experienced childhood trauma were more likely to commit all measurable types of IPV, a plausible reason for the observed findings in our study [55, 56].

Despite the wide cultural diversity in PNG, men are typically socialized to engage in forceful and active interpersonal interaction. In PNG, using violence to settle disputes, express anger, or discipline misbehaving people, especially women who defy social norms, is commonplace and completely justified. Young children are frequently subjected to physical abuse, and the common wisdom holds that physical abuse improves understanding [57]. It is important to note that in PNG, fathers are primarily responsible for enforcing household rules. The PNG home culture normalizes physical abuse of both children and mothers, which is reflected in these strict parenting techniques. That is, strict parenting methods used by men are most significantly related to whether the male spouse physically punishes the children, which is directly tied to male IPV against women in the house, a form of disciplining women [55]. Men who have experienced child abuse or who have seen their mothers being abused are more likely to physically abuse their wives [55].

Furthermore, women who experience sexual violence are seen as acting contrary to social norms that hold women to be obedient to men. Men view women and girls who defy these social conventions and are observed entering pubs or nightclubs as a fair game. Such ideas are based on the idea that violence against women is a means of punitively enforcing male control over women. Acts of sexual violence also have a disciplinary component because men target women who are thought to be acting contrary to social expectations of how women ought to act. Men utilized sexual assault as a tool of control and punishment since it was viewed as morally acceptable [57].

The current study found interparental violence, place of residence and region to be significantly related to IPV among PNG women. It was discovered that women who experienced interparental violence showed a greater likelihood of IPV experience. The study findings corroborate previous studies in Pakistan [58], Bangladesh [45], Nigeria [41], and Ethiopia [59] that being exposed to interparental violence increases women’s likelihood of IPV experience. As a result, the study results support previous studies and imply that this relationship exists in PNG as well. Prior research has proposed possible explanations for this association, including mechanisms by which being exposed to interparental violence may be linked to a greater danger of women experiencing IPV [41, 53, 60]. For example, it was suggested that women who have experienced interparental or intra-family abuse may develop psychological depictions of connections that make them more susceptible to IPV [40, 61]. Daughters might develop connection simulations along the dominance-subservience and victim-victimizer scopes due to seeing their father and mother strike one another [40, 62]. As a result, women can select spouses and surroundings that reflect their comprehension of what affairs are all about, who they are in affairs with, and what to anticipate from a spouse [40, 61]. Thus, the study findings are in line with the multi-generational impact of violence studies [63].

Another prospect is that women who have experienced interparental violence will perceive IPV as a regular aspect of intimate affairs, particularly in PNG, where intimate affairs are moulded and dictated by traditional concepts and conceptualizations. This confirms Kwagala et al. [64] study in Uganda stated that interparental violence exposure is an aspect of socialization, fostering views that approve IPV. As a result, domestic abuse could be an aspect of a lifelong cycle, starting with infant exposure to violence in the home and progressing into adulthood with violence in intimate affairs and homes [40, 61]. It is uncertain whether culprits of domestic abuse have an intergenerational or multigenerational influence. Regardless, the findings sturdily underscore the necessity for early detection of IPV and family intervention to lessen the possibility that abused mothers' children may suffer abuse as victims or culprits as adults.

In our study, place of residence was shown to be significantly associated with IPV among women in PNG. This could be related to cultural beliefs and customs including male dominance in decision-making, female inheritance, polygamy, and religious issues, which could make disclosing any IPV experience in rural PNG difficult [65]. It is also likely that there was under-reporting among rural women in PNG, which could be related to the sensitivity around gender-based abuse and discussing female issues in the PNG environment, including rejection, embarrassment, or stigma connected with domestic violence [52, 66]. As a result, more research is required to explain why there are discrepancies between rural and urban women in PNG. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that urban women are typically financially autonomous and educated and that such women are perceived as a danger by their husbands. IPV may be used as a mechanism by men to exert control over their female spouses [67]. It is also possible that some urban women in PNG approve of wife-beating as a result of their exposure to interparental violence and financial reliance on men [41, 47]. In their relationships, such women frequently become helpless and ostracized, demonstrating an inability to safely criticize their partners and avoid violence [59].

The present study also revealed women living in the Highlands region have a greater probability of experiencing IPV relative to women living in the Southern region. This might be a result of the region's high population density, the dominance of men and masculine values, as well as the submissive dependency of women on men for survival in this area. Men in the highlands of PNG are said to deliberately oppose any increase in women's power because they perceive it as a loss for themselves. When their authority over women is questioned, men will use the bride-price argument, which claims that paying the bride price gives them complete control over their wives [68]. Traditionally, wedlock in the highlands of PNG is frequently understood to involve the handover of conjugal rights, granting the husband access to and control over the wife's body sexually. When individuals talk about "purchasing a woman/wife," they are referring to the trade of bride price, which is progressively seen as a type of commodity exchange [68]. With this in mind, women are more likely to experience IPV than these men.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to examine the association between exposure to interparental violence and the experience if IPV among women using a nationally representative dataset. Furthermore, the usage of a nationally representative survey (DHS) allowed for the collection of an extremely representative sample of the target population. Conclusions from the study findings are valid due to the high sample size and nationally representative nature of the data. Nevertheless, the study's conclusions had some limitations. To begin with, the study depended on cross-sectional data, which limits causal explanations of the results. Secondly, because the study depended on self-reported data that may not be objectively checked, the prevalence of IPV and interparental violence may be underestimated or overstated. Furthermore, the data for this study was restricted to women alone, which is comparable with the widespread perception that women are the most common sufferers of IPV. Whereas this widely held assumption may be challenged in the future, the findings of this present study provide timely and valuable insights that may be utilized to tackle the existing oppression of women in domestic violence in PNG.

Policy and public health implications

The discovery that exposure to interparental abuse augments the risk of IPV has policy and public health consequences. The findings of the study suggest that prevailing policies and programs be consolidated, or that new strategies and programs be developed to tackle interparental violence and IPV in PNG. Due to the complexities of interparental violence and its links to IPV, coupled with demographic considerations, single strategies and programs are improbable to result in long-term change and consequences. As a result, multiple and comprehensive techniques and approaches are necessary. The supply of information and capital at the communal and societal levels, as well as emancipation programs for women, expanded social systems, and self-assurance for women, are all feasible measures for fighting interparental violence. Young women subjected to interparental violence must be shown special consideration in these intercession strategies. The majority of societies, especially in urban areas in PNG, need to increase public health edification and information about the serious health and communal repercussions of interparental violence and IPV. Because of concerns such as poverty, lack of access to proper domestic violence evidence and services, insufficient legitimate reparation for sufferers of abuse, and traditional customs, morals, and practices, policies for tackling interparental violence and IPV face particular challenges in PNG settings. Nevertheless, initiatives and interventions that are attentive to the cultural environment of people who are engaged in interparental violence and IPV may be the most effective in fostering long-term transformation and results.

Conclusion

Exposure to interparental violence was found to be significantly associated with IPV among women in PNG. The findings of this study suggest the need for proven operational strategies to reduce IPV, such as improving anti-IPV laws in PNG. We recommend the development and implementation of intercession strategies to reduce the experience and justification of violence among women exposed to interparental violence. In addition, health professionals should implement counseling and health education initiatives to tackle the consequences of IPV on women’s well-being.

Availability of data and materials

Data for this study is available at https://dhsprogram.com/data/dataset/Papua-New-Guinea_Standard-DHS_2017.cfm?flag=1.

Abbreviations

AIC:

Akaike Information Criterion

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratio

CI:

Confidence Interval

DHS:

Demographic and Health Survey

HIV:

Human Immunodeficiency Virus

ICC:

Inter-Cluster Correlation

ICF:

Inner City Fund

IPV:

Intimate Partner Violence

PNG:

Papua New Guinea

STROBE:

Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

VIF:

Variance Inflation Factor

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Intimate partner violence: definitions. 2021. Fast Facts: Preventing Intimate Partner Violence. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/fastfact.html#:~:text=Intimate%20partner%20violence%20(IPV)%20is,and%20how%20severe%20it%20is.

  2. Smith SG, Basile KC, Gilbert LK, Merrick MT, Patel N, Walling M, Jain A. National intimate partner and sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010–2012 state report.

  3. Mulawa M, Kajula LJ, Yamanis TJ, Balvanz P, Kilonzo MN, Maman S. Perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence among young men and women in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. J Interpers Violence. 2018;33(16):2486–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Benebo FO, Schumann B, Vaezghasemi M. Intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria: a multilevel study investigating the effect of women’s status and community norms. BMC Womens Health. 2018;18(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van der Veen HC, Bogaerts S. Het landelijke onderzoek huiselijk geweld 2010. Justitiële Verkenn. 2010;36(8):33.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Evans SE, Davies C, DiLillo D. Exposure to domestic violence: a meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggress Violent Beh. 2008;13(2):131–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sanz-Barbero B, Barón N, Vives-Cases C. Prevalence, associated factors and health impact of intimate partner violence against women in different life stages. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(10): e0221049.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sugg N. Intimate partner violence: prevalence, health consequences, and intervention. Med Clin. 2015;99(3):629–49.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Juster RP, McEwen BS, Lupien SJ. Allostatic load biomarkers of chronic stress and impact on health and cognition. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010;35(1):2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J, Schoenwald P, Silverman JG. Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy. Contraception. 2010;81(4):316–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hess KL, Javanbakht M, Brown JM, Weiss RE, Hsu P, Gorbach PM. Intimate partner violence and sexually transmitted infections among young adult women. Sex Transm Dis. 2012;39(5):1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Li Y, Marshall CM, Rees HC, Nunez A, Ezeanolue EE, Ehiri JE. Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17(1):18845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Grace KT, Fleming C. A systematic review of reproductive coercion in international settings. World Med Health Policy. 2016;8(4):382–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pavey AR, Gorman GH, Kuehn D, Stokes TA, Hisle-Gorman E. Intimate partner violence increases adverse outcomes at birth and in early infancy. J Pediatr. 2014;165(5):1034–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bonomi AE, Anderson ML, Rivara FP, Thompson RS. Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Serv Res. 2009;44(3):1052–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fowler KA, Jack SP, Lyons BH, Betz CJ, Petrosky E. Surveillance for violent deaths—National violent death reporting system, 18 states, 2014. MMWR Surveill Summ. 2018;67(2):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus LJ, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, Astbury J, Watts CH. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5): e1001439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Dillon G, Hussain R, Loxton D, Rahman S. Mental and physical health and intimate partner violence against women: a review of the literature. Int J Fam Med. 2013;1–15.

  19. Kaukinen C. When stay-at-home orders leave victims unsafe at home: exploring the risk and consequences of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Crim Justice. 2020;45(4):668–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Miller E, McCaw B. Intimate partner violence. N Engl J Med. 2019;380(9):850–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ogum Alangea D, Addo-Lartey AA, Sikweyiya Y, Chirwa ED, Coker-Appiah D, Jewkes R, Adanu RM. Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence among women in four districts of the central region of Ghana: baseline findings from a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(7): e0200874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Aduloju PO, Olagbuji NB, Olofinbiyi AB, Awoleke JO. Prevalence and predictors of intimate partner violence among women attending infertility clinic in south-western Nigeria. Eur J Obstetr Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2015;1(188):66–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lakhani S, Willman AM. Trends in crime and violence in Papua New Guinea. Research and dialogue series; no. 1. 2014. World Bank, Washington, DC. © World Bank.

  24. Eves R. Masculinity matters: men, gender-based violence and the AIDS epidemic in Papua New Guinea. Civic Insecurity: Law, Order and HIV in Papua New Guinea. 2010;1.

  25. Acosta P. Early discontinuation of counselling by survivors of family violence in Papua New Guinea. Intervention. 2019;17(1):109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, on her mission to Papua New Guinea (18–26 March 2012). 2013. https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/women/a.hrc.20.16_en.pdf.

  27. Jewkes R, Sikweyiya Y, Morrell R, Dunkle K. The relationship between intimate partner violence, rape and HIV amongst South African men: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(9): e24256.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partn Abus. 2012;3(2):231–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Bair-Merritt M, Zuckerman B, Augustyn M, Cronholm PF. Silent victims–an epidemic of childhood exposure to domestic violence. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(18):1673–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Darko E, Smith W, Walker D. Gender violence in Papua New Guinea. The cost of business. 2015.

  31. National Statistical Office (NSO) [Papua New Guinea] and ICF. Papua New Guinea Demographic and Health Survey 2016–18. 2019. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, and Rockville, Maryland, USA: NSO and ICF

  32. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, Strobe Initiative. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Kishor S. Domestic violence measurement in the demographic and health surveys: the history and the challenges. Division for the Advancement of Women. 2005;1–0.

  34. Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the conflict tactics (CT) scales. J Marriage Fam. 1979;1:75–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Aboagye RG, Okyere J, Seidu AA, Hagan JE, Ahinkorah BO. Experience of intimate partner violence among women in sexual unions: Is supportive attitude of women towards intimate partner violence a correlate? Healthcare. 2021;9(5):563–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ahinkorah BO, Onayemi OM, Seidu AA, Awopegba OE, Ajayi AI. Association between girl-child marriage and intimate partner violence in Sub-Saharan Africa: insights from a multicountry analysis of demographic and health surveys. J Interpers Viol. 2021;9:08862605211005139.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ahinkorah BO. Polygyny and intimate partner violence in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from 16 cross-sectional demographic and health surveys. SSM-Popul Health. 2021;1(13): 100729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Aboagye RG, Dadzie LK, Arthur-Holmes F, Okyere J, Agbaglo E, Ahinkorah BO, Seidu AA. Intimate partner violence against married and cohabiting women in sub-Saharan Africa: Does sexual autonomy matter? Reprod Health. 2022;19(1):1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Seidu AA, Aboagye RG, Ahinkorah BO, Adu C, Yaya S. Intimate partner violence as a predictor of marital disruption in sub-Saharan Africa: a multilevel analysis of demographic and health surveys. SSM-Popul Health. 2021;1(15): 100877.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Aboagye RG, Seidu AA, Asare BY, Peprah P, Addo IY, Ahinkorah BO. Exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate partner violence among women in sexual unions in sub-Saharan Africa. Archiv Public Health. 2021;79(1):1–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Solanke BL. Does exposure to interparental violence increase women’s risk of intimate partner violence? Evidence from Nigeria demographic and health survey. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Islam MJ, Rahman M, Broidy L, Haque SE, Saw YM, Duc NH, Haque MN, Rahman MM, Islam MR, Mostofa MG. Assessing the link between witnessing inter-parental violence and the perpetration of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Abramsky T, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L. What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Abeya SG, Afework MF, Yalew AW. Intimate partner violence against women in western Ethiopia: prevalence, patterns, and associated factors. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Islam TM, Tareque MI, Tiedt AD, Hoque N. The intergenerational transmission of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. Glob Health Action. 2014;7(1):23591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ziaei S, Frith AL, Ekström EC, Naved RT. Experiencing lifetime domestic violence: associations with mental health and stress among pregnant women in rural Bangladesh: the MINIMat Randomized Trial. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(12): e0168103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Shinwari R, Wilson ML, Abiodun O, Shaikh MA. Intimate partner violence among ever-married Afghan women: patterns, associations and attitudinal acceptance. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2022;25(1):95–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Zureick-Brown S, Lavilla K, Yount KM. Intimate partner violence and infant feeding practices in India: a cross-sectional study. Matern Child Nutr. 2015;11(4):792–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Murshid NS, Critelli FM. Empowerment and intimate partner violence in Pakistan: results from a nationally representative survey. J Interpers Viol. 2020;35(3–4):854–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Rayhan I, Akter K. Prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in Bangladesh amid COVID-19 pandemic. Heliyon. 2021;7(3): e06619.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Esie P, Osypuk TL, Schuler SR, Bates LM. Intimate partner violence and depression in rural Bangladesh: accounting for violence severity in a high prevalence setting. SSM-Popul Health. 2019;1(7): 100368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jatta JW, Baru A, Fawole OI, Ojengbede OA. Intimate partner violence among pregnant women attending antenatal care services in the rural Gambia. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(8): e0255723.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Jewkes R, Fulu E, Tabassam Naved R, Chirwa E, Dunkle K, Haardörfer R, Garcia-Moreno C, UN Multi-country Study on Men and Violence Study Team. Women’s and men’s reports of past-year prevalence of intimate partner violence and rape and women’s risk factors for intimate partner violence: A multicountry cross-sectional study in Asia and the Pacific. PLoS Med. 2017;14(9):e1002381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Lewis I, Maruia B, Walker S. Violence against women in Papua New Guinea. J Fam Stud. 2008;14(2–3):183–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Fulu E, Miedema S, Roselli T, McCook S, Chan KL, Haardörfer R, Jewkes R, Warner X, Lang J, Naved RT, Huque H. Pathways between childhood trauma, intimate partner violence, and harsh parenting: findings from the UN Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. Lancet Glob Health. 2017;5(5):e512–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Lansford JE, Deater-Deckard K, Bornstein MH, Putnick DL, Bradley RH. Attitudes justifying domestic violence predict endorsement of corporal punishment and physical and psychological aggression towards children: a study in 25 low-and middle-income countries. J Pediatr. 2014;164(5):1208–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kelly-Hanku A, Aeno H, Wilson L, Eves R, Mek A, Nake Trumb R, Whittaker M, Fitzgerald L, Kaldor JM, Vallely A. Transgressive women don’t deserve protection: young men’s narratives of sexual violence against women in rural Papua New Guinea. Cult Health Sex. 2016;18(11):1207–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Kanwal Aslam S, Zaheer S, Shafique K. Is spousal violence being “vertically transmitted” through victims? Findings from the Pakistan demographic and health survey 2012–13. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(6): e0129790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Chernet AG, Cherie KT. Prevalence of intimate partner violence against women and associated factors in Ethiopia. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Afiaz A, Biswas RK, Shamma R, Ananna N. Intimate partner violence (IPV) with miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions: identifying vulnerable households for women in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(7): e0236670.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Gage AJ, Thomas NJ. Women’s work, gender roles, and intimate partner violence in Nigeria. Arch Sex Behav. 2017;46(7):1923–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE. Effects of physical maltreatment on the development of peer relations. Dev Psychopathol. 1994;6(1):43–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Coker AL, Smith PH, McKeown RE, King MJ. Frequency and correlates of intimate partner violence by type: physical, sexual, and psychological battering. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(4):553.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. Kwagala B, Wandera SO, Ndugga P, Kabagenyi A. Empowerment, partner’s behaviours and intimate partner physical violence among married women in Uganda. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(1):1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Nabaggala MS, Reddy T, Manda S. Effects of rural–urban residence and education on intimate partner violence among women in Sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis of health survey data. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Echavez CR, Mosawi S, Pilongo LW. The other side of gender inequality: men and masculinities in Afghanistan. Kabul: Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit; 2016.

  67. Kundapur R, Shetty SM, Kempaller VJ, Kumar A, Anurupa M. Violence against educated women by intimate partners in Urban Karnataka, India. Indian J Commun Med: Off Publ Indian Assoc Prevent Soc Med. 2017;42(3):147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Eves R. ‘Full price, full body’: norms, brideprice and intimate partner violence in highlands Papua New Guinea. Cult Health Sex. 2019;21(12):1367–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the MEASURE DHS for granting free access to the original data.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Public Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    Bright Opoku Ahinkorah

  2. Department of Family and Community, Fred N. Binka School of Public Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Hohoe, Ghana

    Richard Gyan Aboagye

  3. Department of Social and Behavioural Science, School of Public Health, University of Ghana, Legon- Accra, Ghana

    Abdul Cadri

  4. Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

    Abdul Cadri

  5. Department of Population and Health, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana

    Tarif Salihu

  6. College of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

    Abdul-Aziz Seidu

  7. REMS, Consult, Sekondi-Takoradi, Ghana

    Abdul-Aziz Seidu

  8. Centre For Gender and Advocacy, Takoradi Technical University, P.O.Box 256, Takoradi, Ghana

    Abdul-Aziz Seidu

  9. School of International Development and Global Studies, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Sanni Yaya

  10. The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, London, UK

    Sanni Yaya

Authors
  1. Bright Opoku Ahinkorah
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Gyan Aboagye
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abdul Cadri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tarif Salihu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Abdul-Aziz Seidu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Sanni Yaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SY, BOA, RGA, and AS conceived the study. AC, RGA, AS, and TS reviewed the literature. RGA, AS, and BOA analysed the data. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript. The authors read and amended drafts of the paper and approved the final version. RGA had the final responsibility to submit for publication. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Gyan Aboagye.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

In this study, all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. No ethical approval was required for this study since the dataset is freely available in the public domain. The ICF Institutional Review Board gave ethical approval for the conduct of the DHS survey. During the data collection process, written informed consent were sought from the respondents before inclusion into the survey. We followed the criteria for the use of secondary data for publishing in this study. Further information regarding the data and ethical norms can be accessed at http://goo.gl/ny8T6X.

Consent for publication

Not Applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahinkorah, B.O., Aboagye, R.G., Cadri, A. et al. Exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea. BMC Women's Health 23, 48 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02179-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02179-5

Keywords

BMC Women's Health

ISSN: 1472-6874

Contact us