ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020
"
Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exposure to pornographic material and perpetration of intimate partner violence among young men in Mwanza Tanzania.Journal of public health (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- Perceptions and experiences of receptive anal intercourse among women: a systematic review and thematic analysis.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Men's Narratives of Sexual Intimate Partner Violence in Urban Mwanza, Northwestern Tanzania.Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment · 2024Article
- Men's Reflections on Romantic Jealousy and Intimate Partner Violence in Mwanza, Tanzania.Violence against women · 2023Article
- Women's Narratives about COVID-19, Preventive Practices and Sources of Information in Northwestern Tanzania.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Intimate partner violence is a recognized public health and development issue that is consistently and comparatively measured through women's experience of physical and/or sexual acts by their partner. While physical intimate partner violence is covered by a wide range of behaviors, sexual intimate partner violence (SIPV) is often only measured through attempted or completed forced sex, ignoring less obvious forms of sexual intimate partner violence. We explored women's conceptualizations of SIPV by conducting in-depth interviews with 18 Tanzanian women. Using a thematic approach, we identified key features of women's sexual intimate relationships and their perceptions of them. The women clearly defined acts of positive sexual relationships that occurred with mutual consent and seduction and SIPV that included acts of forced sex and sex under the threat of violence. They also identified several acts that were crossing the line, whereby a discrepancy of views existed whether they constituted SIPV, such as having sex when out of the mood, sex being the duty of the wife, sex during the menses, requests for anal sex, having sex to not lose the husband, husband refusing sex and husband having other partners. Women in this study felt violated by a far wider range of sexual acts in their relationships. Future studies need to improve the measurement of sexual intimate partner violence to allow the collection of encompassing, yet comparable, data on this harmful phenomenon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.