ArticleCurrent psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.)2024
"
Article in Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Limited literature exists on men's experiences with intimate partner violence (IPV) during the COVID-19 lockdown, especially in resource-constrained settings like Nigeria. We investigated the prevalence, risk factors, and lifetime experiences of IPV among men in Nigeria, during COVID-19 restrictions. Using a mixed methods design, we interviewed 420 married men with a structured questionnaire and conducted 20 in-depth interviews. Logistic regression and a framework approach were used for data analysis. Approximately 86.4% of respondents (n=363) experienced IPV at some point in their lifetime. The prevalence of IPV during the COVID-19 restrictions was 76.2% (n=320). Over a lifetime, verbal (67.4%), physical (78.1%), and sexual coercion (81.0%) were the most common forms of IPV. During the COVID-19 lockdown, the corresponding proportions were 48.6%, 69.5%, and 57.4%, respectively. Male- and female-perpetrated IPV over a lifetime (88.3% vs 87.6%) and during COVID-19 restrictions (88.3% vs 81.4%) were similar (p>0.05). Older age, non-Muslim religion, longer marital duration, partner's profession, and no formal education were associated with higher IPV risk. Home confinement, financial stress, childbirth, disrespect towards spouse's parents, emotional detachment, disputes about child discipline, and suspected infidelity contributed to IPV. Men's active involvement in family life, improved communication, and increased transparency emerged as protective factors. Our findings highlight the high rates of IPV during the pandemic, with men as both perpetrators and victims. Future epidemic preparedness plans should prioritize IPV prevention strategies that enhance partner communication, promote male involvement in family life, address the gender education gap, and provide support services.
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.