ArticleSSM - population health2025
Impact of domestic violence legislation on reported intimate partner violence: a difference-in-differences analysis across 16 countries.
Article in SSM - population health, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a highly prevalent threat to women's health globally. Domestic violence (DV) legislation - encompassing criminal sanctions and civil remedies - has been implemented in many countries but evidence on its effects are lacking. In this study, we evaluate the impact of national-level DV legislation on married women's IPV victimization. Methods: We used self-reported IPV information from 183,222 women across 16 countries, collected in repeated cross-sectional surveys (2000-2021) by the Demographic and Health Surveys, which we linked to DV legislation information from the World Bank. We evaluated impact with a staggered difference-in-differences approach and controlled for time-varying country-level factors. Results: Adoption of DV legislation resulted in an increase in any reported IPV (average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) = 0.07, 95 % CI: 0.00, 0.14). All investigated types of IPV increased slightly, including physical (ATT = 0.05, 95 % CI: -0.05, 0.15), sexual (ATT = 0.04, 95 % CI: -0.03, 0.10), and psychological IPV (ATT = 0.02, 95 % CI: -0.04, 0.08), although estimates were imprecise and included the null. Further assessment shows that reported IPV increased more soon after adoption of legislation, and that women with accepting attitudes about IPV experienced the greatest increase in IPV. We did not observe effect heterogeneity by other factors including age, education level, or number of children. Conclusions: Adoption of DV legislation may increase women's reported IPV victimization. Future research could explore effect heterogeneity across multiple socio-demographic subgroups and the potential mechanisms through which such policies may benefit women's health.
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.