Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34988411›Full record

ArticleEClinicalMedicine2021

Identifying the women most vulnerable to intimate partner violence: A decision tree analysis from 48 low and middle-income countries.

Carolina V N Coll, Thiago M Santos, Karen Devries, Felicia Knaul, Flavia Bustreo, Anne Gatuguta, Gbenankpon Mathias Houvessou, Aluísio J D Barros

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EClinicalMedicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. General Violence Against Women by an Intimate Partner and Co-Occurrence.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Carolina V N CollInternational Center for Equity in Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Thiago M SantosInternational Center for Equity in Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Karen DevriesLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom.
Felicia KnaulInstitute for Advanced Study of the Americas, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States.
Flavia BustreoFondation Botnar, Geneva, Switzerland.
Anne GatugutaDepartment of Global Health and Infection, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Gbenankpon Mathias HouvessouPostgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Aluísio J D BarrosInternational Center for Equity in Health, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary prevention strategies are needed to reduce high rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The effectiveness of population-based approaches may be improved by adding initiatives targeted at the most vulnerable groups and tailored to context-specificities.

methodsWe applied a decision-tree approach to identify subgroups of women at higher risk of IPV in 48 LMICs and in all countries combined. Data from the most recent Demographic and Health Survey carried out between 2010 and 2019 with available information on IPV and sociodemographic indicators was used. To create the trees, we selected 15 recognized risk factors for IPV in the literature which had a potential for targeting interventions. Exposure to IPV was defined as having experienced physical and/or sexual IPV in the past 12 months.

findingsIn the pooled decision tree, witnessing IPV during childhood, a low or medium empowerment level and alcohol use by the partner were the strongest markers of IPV vulnerability. IPV prevalence amongst the most vulnerable women was 43% compared to 21% in the overall sample. This high-risk group included women who witnessed IPV during childhood and had lower empowerment levels. These were 12% of the population and 1 in 4 women who experienced IPV in the selected LMICs. Across the individual national trees, subnational regions emerged as the most frequent markers of IPV occurrence.

interpretationStarting with well-known predictors of IPV, the decision-tree approach provides important insights about subpopulations of women where IPV prevalence is high. This information can help designing targeted interventions. For a large proportion of women who experienced IPV, however, no particular risk factors were identified, emphasizing the need for population wide approaches conducted in parallel, including changing social norms, strengthening laws and policies supporting gender equality and women´s rights as well as guaranteeing women´s access to justice systems and comprehensive health services.

fundingBill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Grant INV-010051/OPP1199234), Wellcome Trust (Grant Number: 101815/Z/13/Z) and Associação Brasileira de Saúde Coletiva (ABRASCO).

Indexed as

InterventionsIntimate partner violenceLow and middle income countriesViolence against women

Identifiers

PMID34988411
PMCPMC8712229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.