The association between women's disability and acceptance towards intimate partner violence among women and their male partners: A multi-country analysis

1Citations
Citations of this article
17Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To examine whether disabled women are more likely to report accepting attitudes towards intimate partner violence (IPV) than non-disabled women, and whether male partners of disabled women are more likely to accept IPV than male partners of non-disabled women. Methods: Secondary analysis of nationally representative cross-sectional data from the Demographic Health Survey (DHS) in nine countries. Logistic regression examined the relationship between (1) women's disability and IPV acceptance (n = 114 695) and (2) women's disability and their male partners' IPV acceptance (n = 20 566); pooled and country-specific estimates were calculated. Results: IPV acceptance ranged from 5% to 80% among women and from 5% to 56% among male partners. Overall, disabled women were more accepting of IPV than non-disabled women (pooled adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.08–1.20), with country-specific aOR ranging from 1.05 to 1.63. Overall, disabled women's male partners had higher likelihood of IPV acceptance than non-disabled women's partners (pooled aOR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00–1.28).; country-specific estimates varied (aOR range from 0.56 to 1.40). Conclusion: Disabled women and their male partners had higher IPV acceptance compared with non-disabled women and their male partners. More research is needed to better understand this association, including disability-associated discrimination. Findings underscore the importance of more research with disabled women and their partners to address IPV.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, C., Kanselaar, S., Zaidi, J., & Gupta, J. (2023). The association between women’s disability and acceptance towards intimate partner violence among women and their male partners: A multi-country analysis. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics, 163(2), 377–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.14782

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free