Risk factors for interpersonal violence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses

107Citations
Citations of this article
247Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background Interpersonal violence is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. The strength and population effect of modifiable risk factors for interpersonal violence, and the quality of the research evidence is not known. Aims We aimed to examine the strength and population effect of modifiable risk factors for interpersonal violence, and the quality and reproducibility of the research evidence. Method We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk factors for interpersonal violence. A systematic search was conducted to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses in general population samples. Effect sizes were extracted, converted into odds ratios and synthesised, and population attributable risk fractions (PAF) were calculated. Quality analyses were performed, including of small study effects, adjustment for confounders and heterogeneity. Secondary analyses for aggression, intimate partner violence and homicide were conducted, and systematic reviews (without meta-analyses) were summarised. Results We identified 22 meta-analyses reporting on risk factors for interpersonal violence. Neuropsychiatric disorders were among the strongest in relative and absolute terms. The neuropsychiatric risk factor that had the largest effect at a population level were substance use disorders, with a PAF of 14.8% (95% CI 9.0–21.6%), and the most important historical factor was witnessing or being a victim of violence in childhood (PAF = 12.2%, 95% CI 6.5–17.4%). There was evidence of small study effects and large heterogeneity. Conclusions National strategies for the prevention of interpersonal violence may need to review policies concerning the identification and treatment of modifiable risk factors.

Figures

  • Fig. 1 Effect sizes of risk factors (identified in meta-analyses) for interpersonal violence, ranked by strength of association and subcategory. Adjusted odds ratios were used when possible.
  • Fig. 2 Population attributable fractions (PAFs) of risk factors (identified in meta-analyses) for interpersonal violence.
  • Table 1 Top five risk factors for interpersonal violence ranked by quality of evidence
  • Fig. 3 A comparison of pooled effect size of included metaanalyses and the effect size of the largest included study in these individual meta-analyses.

References Powered by Scopus

Introduction to Meta-Analysis

14706Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Global, regional, and national life expectancy, all-cause mortality, and cause-specific mortality for 249 causes of death, 1980–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

5197Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

3426Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: an umbrella review

473Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the precipitation of intimate partner violence

234Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Violence and mental disorders: a structured review of associations by individual diagnoses, risk factors, and risk assessment

160Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Fazel, S., Smith, E. N., Chang, Z., & Geddes, J. R. (2018, October 1). Risk factors for interpersonal violence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses. British Journal of Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2018.145

Readers over time

‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘25020406080

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 76

63%

Researcher 23

19%

Professor / Associate Prof. 14

12%

Lecturer / Post doc 7

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 48

40%

Medicine and Dentistry 41

34%

Social Sciences 20

17%

Nursing and Health Professions 11

9%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0