A cross-sectional study identifying the pattern of factors related to psychological intimate partner violence exposure in Slovenian family practice attendees: what hurt them the most.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is yet to be fully acknowledged as a public health problem in Slovenia. This study aimed to explore the health and other patient characteristics associated with psychological IPV exposure and gender-related specificity in family clinic attendees. METHODS: In a multi-centre cross-sectional study, 960 family practice attendees aged 18 years and above were recruited. In 689 interviews with currently- or previously-partnered patients, the short form of A Domestic Violence Exposure Questionnaire and additional questions about behavioural patterns of exposure to psychological abuse in the past year were given. General practitioners (GPs) reviewed the medical charts of 470 patients who met the IPV exposure criteria. The Domestic Violence Exposure Medical Chart Check List was used, collecting data on the patients' lives and physical, sexual and reproductive, and psychological health status, as well as sick leave, hospitalisation, visits to family practices and referrals to other clinical specialists in the past year. In multivariate logistic regression modelling the factors associated with past year psychological IPV exposure were identified, with P<0.05 set as the level of statistical significance. RESULTS: Of the participants (n=470), 12.1% (n=57) were exposed to psychological IPV in the previous year (46 women and 11 men). They expressed more complaints regarding sexual and reproductive (p=0.011), and psychological and behavioural status (p<0.001), in the year prior to the survey. Unemployment or working part-time, a college degree, an intimate relationship of six years or more and a history of disputes in the intimate relationship, increased the odds of psychological IPV exposure in the sample, explaining 41% of the variance. In females, unemployment and a history of disputes in the intimate relationship explained 43% of the variance. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of psychological IPV above 10% during the past year was similar to earlier studies in Slovenia, although the predominance of better-educated people might be associated with lower tolerance toward psychological abuse. GPs should pay special attention to unemployed patients and those complaining about family disputes, to increase early detection.

How many Slovenian family practice attendees are victims of intimate partner violence? A re-evaluation cross-sectional study report.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) can be considered a leading public health problem affecting approximately 50% of women during the course of their lifetimes. This study was carried out with the aim of re-testing the prevalence data and providing sufficient grounds for decision-makers in family medicine in Slovenia to adopt much-needed protocols for IPV management in the field. METHODS: In January 2012, every tenth general practitioner (GP) registered in Slovenia, of a total of 958, was invited to participate in a multi-centre cross-sectional study, and 9.4% of them, working in 90 family practices, agreed to participate. From February 1 to March 1, 2012, they asked every fifth family practice attendee aged 18 years and above, regardless of gender, to participate in the study. The short version of Domestic Violence Exposure Questionnaire was administered to 2572 patients. RESULTS: In the sample, there were more women (62.9% (n = 1617)). The average age of all the participants was 49.0 ± 16.1 years. Of 2572 participants (95.3% response rate), 17.1% people had been exposed to either emotional or both physical and emotional abuse. The prevalence of psychological violence was 10.3%, and that of concurrent physical and psychological abuse 6.8%, with all the patients exposed to physical IPV disclosing concurrent psychological violence. Female gender and previous formal divorce were risk factors identified in all three multivariate logistic regression models. The odds of concurrent physical and psychological and either type of IPV exposure in patients were lessened by an age of 65 years or above. The odds for either type of IPV were also lower in single people, while in concurrent physical and psychological IPV exposure, living in urban settings acted as a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: In Slovenian family practice attendees, an IPV exposure prevalence of approximately 17% should be considered a valid estimation.

Depression in Intimate Partner Violence Victims in Slovenia: A Crippling Pattern of Factors Identified in Family Practice Attendees.

This multi-centre cross-sectional study explored associations between prevalence of depression and exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) at any time in patients' adult life in 471 participants of a previous IPV study. In 2016, 174 interviews were performed, using the Short Form Domestic Violence Exposure Questionnaire, the Zung Scale and questions about behavioural patterns of exposure to IPV. Family doctors reviewed patients' medical charts for period from 2012 to 2016, using the Domestic Violence Exposure Medical Chart Check List, for conditions which persisted for at least three years. Depression was found to be associated with any exposure to IPV in adult life and was more likely to affect women. In multivariable logistic regression modelling, factors associated with self-rated depression were identified (p < 0.05). Exposure to emotional and physical violence was identified as a risk factor in the first model, explaining 23% of the variance. The second model explained 66% of the variance; past divorce, dysfunctional family relationships and a history of incapacity to work increased the likelihood of depression in patients. Family doctors should consider IPV exposure when detecting depression, since lifetime IPV exposure was found to be 40.4% and 36.9% of depressed revealed it.