Intimate Partner Violence Among Service Members and Veterans: Differences by Sex and Rurality.

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY Journal of Modern History Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2020-01-02 DOI:10.1037/trm0000236
David L Albright, Justin McDaniel, Kelli Godfrey, Catherine Carlson, Kari L Fletcher, Kate Hendricks Thomas
{"title":"Intimate Partner Violence Among Service Members and Veterans: Differences by Sex and Rurality.","authors":"David L Albright, Justin McDaniel, Kelli Godfrey, Catherine Carlson, Kari L Fletcher, Kate Hendricks Thomas","doi":"10.1037/trm0000236","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among military service members and veterans (SMVs), factors unique to military service may contribute to an elevated risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. Although rurality has been established as a risk factor for IPV, differences in IPV victimization by rural- urban dwelling location, SMV status, and sex have not been explored. The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate of IPV victimization in rural and urban areas in the United States by SMV status and sex. We obtained Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data (BRFSS; <i>n</i> = 18,755); fit a mixed-effects, multilevel generalized linear model to the data for IPV victimization; and linked the model to U.S. Census Bureau population count data. We generated predicted estimates of IPV for SMVs and civilians separately by sex in rural and urban areas. The direct IPV victimization prevalence rate for the entire BRFSS sample was 16.90%. Substantial variation in model-based IPV prevalence was observed across subgroups. Female SMVs (rural = 23.54%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [17.33, 30.02]; urban = 23.34%, 95% CI [17.48, 30.17]) had higher IPV victimization rates than female civilians (rural = 14.55%, 95% CI [13.06, 16.37]; urban = 14.50%, 95% CI [13.19, 16.34]), whereas male civilians (rural = 8.06%, 95% CI [7.19, 9.08]; urban = 8.02%, 95% CI [7.27, 9.02]) had higher IPV victimization rates than male SMVs (rural = 7.21%, 95% CI [6.03, 8.47]; urban = 7.17%, 95% CI [6.00, 8.41]). Programming for preventing and assisting in recovering from IPV exposure should target rural-dwelling female SMVs.</p>","PeriodicalId":46828,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern History","volume":"94 1","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11136475/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/trm0000236","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Among military service members and veterans (SMVs), factors unique to military service may contribute to an elevated risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. Although rurality has been established as a risk factor for IPV, differences in IPV victimization by rural- urban dwelling location, SMV status, and sex have not been explored. The purpose of this study was to estimate the rate of IPV victimization in rural and urban areas in the United States by SMV status and sex. We obtained Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data (BRFSS; n = 18,755); fit a mixed-effects, multilevel generalized linear model to the data for IPV victimization; and linked the model to U.S. Census Bureau population count data. We generated predicted estimates of IPV for SMVs and civilians separately by sex in rural and urban areas. The direct IPV victimization prevalence rate for the entire BRFSS sample was 16.90%. Substantial variation in model-based IPV prevalence was observed across subgroups. Female SMVs (rural = 23.54%, 95% confidence interval [CI] [17.33, 30.02]; urban = 23.34%, 95% CI [17.48, 30.17]) had higher IPV victimization rates than female civilians (rural = 14.55%, 95% CI [13.06, 16.37]; urban = 14.50%, 95% CI [13.19, 16.34]), whereas male civilians (rural = 8.06%, 95% CI [7.19, 9.08]; urban = 8.02%, 95% CI [7.27, 9.02]) had higher IPV victimization rates than male SMVs (rural = 7.21%, 95% CI [6.03, 8.47]; urban = 7.17%, 95% CI [6.00, 8.41]). Programming for preventing and assisting in recovering from IPV exposure should target rural-dwelling female SMVs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现役军人和退伍军人中的亲密伴侣暴力:不同性别和地区的差异。
在军人和退伍军人(SMVs)中,服兵役的独特因素可能会导致亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)受害风险升高。虽然农村地区已被确定为 IPV 的风险因素,但尚未探讨过 IPV 受害情况在城乡居住地、SMV 身份和性别方面的差异。本研究的目的是根据 SMV 状态和性别估算美国城乡地区的 IPV 受害率。我们获得了行为风险因素监测系统数据(BRFSS;n = 18,755);将混合效应多层次广义线性模型拟合到 IPV 受害数据中;并将该模型与美国人口普查局的人口数量数据联系起来。我们按性别分别生成了农村和城市地区 SMV 和平民的 IPV 预测估计值。BRFSS 全部样本的直接 IPV 受害率为 16.90%。基于模型的 IPV 发生率在不同亚组之间存在很大差异。女性 SMV(农村 = 23.54%,95% 置信区间 [CI] [17.33, 30.02];城市 = 23.34%,95% 置信区间 [17.48, 30.17])的 IPV 受害率高于女性平民(农村 = 14.55%,95% 置信区间 [13.06, 16.37];城市 = 14.50%,95% 置信区间 [13.19,16.34]),而男性平民(农村 = 8.06%,95% CI [7.19,9.08];城市 = 8.02%,95% CI [7.27,9.02])的 IPV 受害率高于男性 SMV(农村 = 7.21%,95% CI [6.03,8.47];城市 = 7.17%,95% CI [6.00,8.41])。预防和协助从 IPV 事件中恢复的计划应以居住在农村的女性 SMV 为目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
期刊介绍: The Journal of Modern History is recognized as the leading American journal for the study of European intellectual, political, and cultural history. The Journal"s geographical and temporal scope-the history of Europe since the Renaissance-makes it unique: the JMH explores not only events and movements in specific countries, but also broader questions that span particular times and places.
期刊最新文献
Intimate Partner Violence Among Service Members and Veterans: Differences by Sex and Rurality. :The Perils of Interpreting: The Extraordinary Lives of Two Translators between Qing China and the British Empire :The Feeling of History: Islam, Romanticism, and Andalusia :Helmut Schmidt and British-German Relations: A European Misunderstanding :Men Out of Focus: The Soviet Masculinity Crisis in the Long Sixties
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1