ArticleJournal of family violence2023
Help-seeking for Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse: Experiences of Civilian Partners of UK Military Personnel.
Article in Journal of family violence, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions of the impact of military life on relationships and Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse among UK military personnel.PloS one · 2025Article
- Not Always a "Buffer": Self-Compassion as Moderator of the Link Between Masculinity Ideologies and Help-Seeking Intentions After Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2023Article
- Help-seeking for Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse: Experiences of Serving and Ex-serving UK Military Personnel.Journal of family violence · 2023Article
- Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse: A Qualitative Exploration of UK Military Personnel and Civilian Partner Experiences.Journal of family violence · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is evidence that Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse (IPVA) is more prevalent among military populations compared with civilian populations. However, there has been limited research into the help-seeking experiences of civilian victim-survivors who have experienced IPVA within relationships with military personnel. This qualitative study aimed to explore the experiences of, and barriers to, help-seeking for IPVA victimisation among civilian partners of military personnel in order to identify strategies to improve the management of IPVA both within the military and civilian sectors. The study adopted a descriptive cross-sectional study design and used qualitative research methods. One-to-one telephone interviews were conducted with civilian victim-survivors (n = 25) between January and August 2018. Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. Three superordinate themes were derived: (1) Drivers to help-seeking; (2) Barriers to help-seeking; and (3) Experiences of services. The findings indicate difficulties in help-seeking for IPVA among civilian partners of military personnel due to stigma, fear, dependency, poor understanding of IPVA, lack of appropriate and timely support, and a perceived lack of victim support. Difficulties in help-seeking were perceived by participants to be amplified by military culture, public perceptions of the military, military protection of personnel and the lack of coordination between civilian and military judicial services. This study reinforces the need for a military specific Domestic Abuse strategy, identifies vulnerable groups and highlights a need for both increased awareness and understanding of IPVA within civilian and military services in order to provide adequate victim protection.
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.