ArticlePsychological reports2026
How Do People Make Sense of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in the Context of Perpetrator PTSD Diagnostic Status and Gender Identity?
Article in Psychological reports, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) has profound effects on victim physical and mental health, considerable social and economic costs and is a significant public health concern. Research suggests that the way the public make sense of IPV may vary in different contexts, as certain contextual factors may be used to explain, excuse or legitimise IPV. PTSD diagnostic status and perpetrator gender may be such contextual factors, but little research exists in this area. This study explored how the public make sense of IPV in the context of perpetrator diagnostic status (PTSD or no PTSD) and gender identity (female, male or nonbinary) by exploring IPV ratings and IPV discourses. Two hundred and sixty-five (265) community participants were recruited via snowball sampling and presented one of six versions of the same story containing an account of IPV. Stories were identical across conditions bar perpetrator diagnostic status and gender identity. Participants rated the degree to which they thought the behaviour in the story constituted IPV. Approximately half the participants also completed a story completion task, and stories were analysed for themes. IPV ratings were weighted towards abuse and did not vary with diagnostic status or gender identity. Five themes were identified in participant stories: (i) characterise the behaviour; (ii) trajectory of IPV; (iii) show compassion towards victim of IPV; (iv) hold victim of IPV responsible; and (v) context influences decision-making. Limitations, implications and directions for future research are discussed.
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.