Intimate Partner Violence and Socioeconomic Deprivation in England: Findings From a National Cross-Sectional Survey

Objectives. We examined the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) and its association with social deprivation in England.Methods. We used multivariable logistic regression to investigate IPV correlates among 21 226 men and women aged 16 to 59 years in the 2008 nationally representative cross-sectional British Crime Survey.Results. Lifetime IPV was reported by 23.8% of women and 11.5% of men. Physical IPV was reported by 16.8% and 7.0%, respectively; emotional-only IPV was reported by 5.8% and 4.2%, respectively. After adjustment for demographic confounders, lifetime physical IPV experienced by women was associated with social housing tenure (odds ratio OR] = 2.3; 95% confidence interval CI] = 2.0, 2.7), low household income (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.8, 2.7), poor educational attainment (OR = 1.2; 95% CI = 1.0, 1.5), low social class (OR = 1.5; 95% CI = 0.3, 1.7), and living in a multiply deprived area (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1, 1.7). Physical IPV experienced by men and emotional IPV experienced by either gender were generally not associated with deprivation factors.Conclusions. Physical and emotional IPV are very common among adults in England. Emotional IPV prevention policies may be appropriate across the social spectrum; those for physical IPV should be particularly accessible to disadvantaged women.The World Health Organization highlights intimate partner violence (IPV) as a pressing public health and human rights issue.1 The World Health Organization defines IPV as physical or sexual violence, emotional abuse, or controlling behavior by a current or former intimate partner.2 In nearly 50 populationwide surveys globally some 10% to 69% of women report having ever experienced physical abuse by an intimate partner.2 In the United Kingdom, a 2009 review found that the prevalence of lifetime IPV against women was 13% to 31% in community studies, and 13% to 41% in clinical populations.3 The health impact of IPV extends beyond mortality and direct injury4 to poor overall self-rated health, mental health problems, and gynecological and sexual health problems.5,6 The annual UK domestic violence cost was estimated at £ 16 billion in 2008.7Often, IPV is seen in terms of physical or sexual violence perpetrated by men against women.1 As a consequence, most UK and international IPV prevention policies are targeted at women.1,8 However, some recent national surveys found a near-equal prevalence of physical IPV reported by men and women, mainly in North America and New Zealand, and there are calls for more services for male victims.9,10 Many have argued that this finding reflects measurement artifact, ignoring important differences in the nature and context of abuse.11 Further detailed examination of IPV as reported by both genders in national studies is needed to inform this debate.Policies for prevention of IPV also tend to emphasize that all women are at risk, regardless of their socioeconomic background.1,12 This is perhaps in an effort to decrease stigma associated with IPV. However, many studies show that both male perpetrators and female victims of physical IPV are more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds.13–15 The association with social deprivation depends on the broader social context, with more empowered women being at higher risk in some settings.16 There is little evidence on the socioeconomic profile of male victims. Finally, although central to the World Health Organization’s definition of IPV, emotional abuse is not well-described in the current literature among either gender. This is an important knowledge gap, as emotional abuse has a significant public health impact that can be as great as that of physical abuse.17,18 Understanding how social deprivation is associated with different types of abuse in both sexes will inform the need for targeted versus universal interventions.The British Crime Survey (BCS), a large national victimization survey in England and Wales, provides a detailed assessment of IPV. Home Office BCS reports examined associations between social deprivation and IPV victimization during the past year,19–21 but did not examine associations with lifetime IPV or IPV subtypes. To our knowledge there are no IPV studies using BCS data in the peer-reviewed scientific or public health literature, and only 1 UK national study using data other than the BCS, focusing on physical IPV.3,22 We used BCS data to describe the prevalence of both recent and lifetime IPV among men and women in England, and to explore whether different types of lifetime IPV were associated with social deprivation among either gender.To facilitate interpretation of our empirical findings we generated hypotheses in advance, following our review of theoretical and empirical literature. We expected to find that (1) women would report a higher prevalence of all types of IPV than men, particularly severe, prolonged, and controlling types of abuse11,23; (2) social deprivation would be associated with being a victim of lifetime IPV in both men and women13,15; and (3) social deprivation would be more strongly associated with being a victim of physical than of emotional lifetime IPV.17,24