Intimate Partner Violence Among Women of Reproductive Age in Nicaragua: Results From a Nationwide Survey
Intimate Partner Violence Among Women of Reproductive Age in Nicaragua: Results From a Nationwide Survey
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Ahead of Print.
This article aims to identify the factors associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) using data from the latest available nationwide survey in Nicaragua. A secondary analysis of the 2011–2012 Nicaraguan Demography and Health Survey (ENDESA 2011–2012) was conducted. A total of 12,605 women aged 15–49 years who had reported being married or united were included. IPV (yes/no) was defined as the outcome variable, and it was considered if a woman suffered verbal, psychological, physical, or sexual violence during the previous 12 months. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated using a bivariate and multivariate logistic regression model. A p value <.05 was considered statistically significant and did not correct p values for multiple testing. The overall prevalence of IPV was 17.5%. Women living in urban setting (AOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.26–1.80), women who self-identify as native (AOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.34–1.61) or women who have a history of abuse as a child (AOR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.69–2.27) were more likely to suffer IPV compared to their counterparts. Age was found to be a protective factor for IPV. Variables such as educational level and wealth index, do not report any association with IPV. Our findings shows that IPV in Nicaragua continues to be a frequent event. The results provide evidence of drivers for IPV at a national level. These findings are useful for the design of intervention policies and strategies for the prevention of IPV.
This article aims to identify the factors associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) using data from the latest available nationwide survey in Nicaragua. A secondary analysis of the 2011–2012 Nicaraguan Demography and Health Survey (ENDESA 2011–2012) was conducted. A total of 12,605 women aged 15–49 years who had reported being married or united were included. IPV (yes/no) was defined as the outcome variable, and it was considered if a woman suffered verbal, psychological, physical, or sexual violence during the previous 12 months. Crude and adjusted odds ratios with 95% CI were calculated using a bivariate and multivariate logistic regression model. A p value <.05 was considered statistically significant and did not correct p values for multiple testing. The overall prevalence of IPV was 17.5%. Women living in urban setting (AOR: 1.51, 95% CI: 1.26–1.80), women who self-identify as native (AOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.34–1.61) or women who have a history of abuse as a child (AOR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.69–2.27) were more likely to suffer IPV compared to their counterparts. Age was found to be a protective factor for IPV. Variables such as educational level and wealth index, do not report any association with IPV. Our findings shows that IPV in Nicaragua continues to be a frequent event. The results provide evidence of drivers for IPV at a national level. These findings are useful for the design of intervention policies and strategies for the prevention of IPV.
Akram Hernández-Vásquez