Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35329231›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Prevalence and Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence against Women in Liberia: Findings from 2019-2020 Demographic and Health Survey.

Masood Ali Shaikh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

1 author.

Masood Ali ShaikhIndependent Researcher, Karachi 75300, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-0239-4464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntimate partner violence is a global public health crisis and a human rights issue. The objectives of the study were to conduct secondary analysis of the most recent Liberia Demographic and Health Survey (2019-2020) to determine the descriptive and analytical epidemiology of intimate partner violence (IPV) and its correlates in 15-49 year old ever-married women.

methodsAssociation of physical, emotional, sexual, and having experienced any type of IPV with 10 explanatory socio-demographic, attitudinal, and experiences were analyzed using simple and multiple logistic regression models.

results55.29% of women reported having ever experienced some form of IPV perpetrated by their current or most recent husband/partner, with the most common type being physical violence. Having been slapped, insulted, made to feel bad, and physically forced into unwanted sex were the most common types of physical, emotional, and sexual IPV. The multivariable analysis showed statistically significant association with IPV for number of living children, women's acceptance of IPV, husband/partner's use of alcohol, and having witnessed parental physical IPV.

conclusionsThe prevalence of having experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence in Liberia was much higher than the prevalence for the WHO Africa region of 33%, highlighting the need for better women empowerment and gender equality in Liberia.

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolenceAdolescentAdultChildCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansLiberiaMiddle AgedPrevalenceRisk FactorsSexual BehaviorSexual PartnersYoung Adultintimate partner violenceLiberiawomen

Identifiers

PMID35329231
PMCPMC8951680

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.