ArticleBMC public health2026
Disability and intimate partner violence in England: gender stratified analyses of a probability sample survey.
Article in BMC public health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFew prior random probability sample survey spans experience of all forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) among people with different types of impairment in England. This study aimed to compare the 12-month prevalence of four types of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse) for people with and without four types of impairment (physical, sensory, learning impairments, and experiencing difficulties with activities of daily living (ADLs)), taking account of variations by gender.
methodsThis study used data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey that covered the household population of England aged 16 years and older. Data was analysed on 7546 respondents (4488 women and 3058 men). Logistic regression was conducted and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were reported separately for men and women.
resultsDisabled women reported significantly higher rates of psychological (AOR = 1.98, 95% CI = 1.31-2.98) and sexual IPV (AOR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.55-3.91) than non-disabled women. No significant association was found for physical IPV. Women with a learning impairment reported the highest prevalence for almost all types of IPV. Women reporting restricted ADLs were at higher risk of experiencing economic abuse (AOR = 2.88, 95% CI = 1.33-6.23). Disabled men did not have a higher risk of experiencing any forms of IPV compared with non-disabled men.
conclusionWhile violence may contribute to the onset of some forms of disability, our findings suggest that disability may also enhance the risk of IPV for disabled women, particularly for women with a learning impairment. Investment in targeted violence prevention programs specifically for disabled women is warranted.
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.