Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results from the population-based study DREAMCORONA.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: This study examines the 12-month prevalence rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization, including psychological, physical, and sexual forms, in women and men. It also aims to identify changes in IPV victimization during the COVID-19 pandemic and to explore factors associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization during this period. METHODS: Data from the DREAMCORONA study in Germany collected from May 2020 to February 2021 included 737 participants, i.e., (expectant) mothers (64%) and fathers (36%). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2S) short form was used to assess the 12-month IPV victimization. Prevalence of IPV victimization as well as changes in IPV victimization during the pandemic were analyzed descriptively, with results stratified by sex. Multiple logistic regression was employed to identify risk factors for IPV. RESULTS: Psychological IPV was found to be the most prevalent form of violence, with the occurrence of any psychological IPV affecting 48.5% of women and 39.4% of men, while 2.6% of women and 3.3% of men reported the occurrence of any physical IPV victimization, and 2.8% of women and 1.5% of men reported the occurrence of any sexual IPV victimization. Of those who experienced the occurrence of any IPV in the last 12 months, 89.7% of women and 89.8% of men were victimized by one single act of violence. The majority of affected participants reported no change in psychological and physical IPV victimization during the pandemic. Nevertheless, for certain IPV behaviors on the psychological and physical IPV victimization subscales, both affected women and men also reported higher frequencies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Multiple logistic regression revealed that higher levels of relationship satisfaction were negatively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization for women and men, whereas greater levels of own anger-hostility symptoms were positively associated with the occurrence of any IPV victimization. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological IPV was present in almost every second (expectant) couple. The majority of affected women and men reported no change in their psychological and physical IPV victimization, suggesting that they continued to experience IPV during the pandemic. This underlines the importance of promoting healthier relationship dynamics, coping strategies, and emotional well-being to reduce the risk of IPV, even in times of crisis. Our study sheds light on the early stages of the pandemic and highlights the ongoing need for research into the temporal dynamics of IPV.