Intimate partner violence and its correlates in middle-aged and older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country secondary analysis.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Middle-aged and older adults, ages 45 years or older, are at higher risk of COVID-19 mortality and social isolation. However, most studies on IPV during the pandemic do not focus on this important subpopulation. Informed by the social-ecological theory, this study examines individual, household, community, and country-level correlates of IPV among middle-aged and older adults in multiple countries using a cross-sectional online survey. Data from 2867 participants aged 45 or older in the International Sexual Health and Reproductive Health (I-SHARE) survey from July 2020 to February 2021 were described using univariate analysis. IPV was defined using four validated WHO measures. Individual characteristics included self-isolation and food security. At the country-level, we examined social distancing stringency. Logistic regression models with a random intercept for country were conducted to explore IPV correlates among 1730 eligible individuals from 20 countries with complete data. Most participants were heterosexual (2469/2867), cisgender (2531/2867) females (1589/2867) between the ages of 45-54 (1539/2867). 12.1% (346/2867) of participants experienced IPV during social distancing measures. After adjustment, participants who self-isolated experienced 1.4 (95% CI 1.0, 2.0, p = 0.04) times the odds of IPV compared to those who had not isolated. Those who reported an increase in food insecurity compared to pre-pandemic experienced 2.2 times the odds (95% CI 1.6, 3.0, p<0.0001) of IPV compared to those who did not report increased food insecurity. People in countries with more stringent social distancing policies were less likely to experience IPV compared to people in countries with lower levels of stringency (aOR = 0.6, 95% CI 0.4, 0.9, p = 0.04). IPV was common among middle-aged and older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our data suggest the need for further crisis management and social protection measures for middle-aged and older adults who have intersecting vulnerabilities to IPV to mitigate COVID-19 impact.

Medical consequences of "contingency accommodation" for people seeking asylum: thematic analysis of a survey from professionals working in contingency accommodation.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about the housing of migrants and asylum seekers have escalated since the COVID-19 pandemic. From the use of quasi-detention facilities and so-called contingency accommodation to outbreaks of diphtheria in processing centres, there is a worrying trend to normalise potentially damaging conditions. The aim of this study was to assess the health risks posed by contingency housing for asylum seekers in the UK. METHODS: In this cross-sectional survey, a 10-point online questionnaire was sent to professional networks working with refugees and asylum seekers within the UK. Responses were collected between March 4, and April 11, 2022, using a mixture of convenience and snowballing sampling approach. The objectives of the survey were (1) to identify and document unmet needs, (2) to offer practical support, and (3) to map out services and organisation. The survey was designed by six medical professionals with experience of working with migrants and validated by three doctors who had experience running out-reach medical clinics for asylum seekers within contingency accommodation. Background details of geographical location and occupation were collected, and a combination of closed and open questions were used to collect information across five domains (medical, legal social, integration, and basic essentials) using a social determinants of health framework. A code book thematic analysis using a deductive/inductive hybrid approach was used to identify health and social needs as well as specific rights being denied. FINDINGS: There were 68 responses from around the UK, of which 30 (44%) were health-care professionals, and 38 (56%) were from the wider voluntary sector. 45 (67%) had visited an accommodation site, and 21 (33%) had worked with those living in contingency accommodation in other respects. Respondents reported observations regarding sites across most parts of the UK. Major themes of access to health-care, access to other services, barriers to access, and safeguarding were identified, with subthemes on access to primary care, maternity, and mental health services (eg, "Vast unmet need in mental health provision, several suicide attempts"); access to basic essential services (eg, "Food was not fit for purpose" "[c]hildren often did not receive breakfast"); education, and legal support; and frequent moving and communication. INTERPRETATION: Through several themes we highlight the substantial impact of structural isolation of asylum seekers through contingency housing, its major effects on wellbeing and the exacerbation of health inequities. We are using these results to work with asylum seekers and local non-governmental organisations to campaign for improved housing conditions. Study limitations include sampling bias, and a lack of voices of those with lived experience. FUNDING: None.

Inequalities in children's mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from the UK Household Longitudinal Study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that child mental health inequalities may have widened during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated whether child mental health inequalities changed in 2020/2021 compared with prepandemic. METHODS: We analysed 16 361 observations from 9272 children in the population representative UK Household Longitudinal Study. Child mental health was measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) at ages 5 and 8 years in annual surveys 2011-2019, and at ages 5-11 years in July 2020, September 2020 and March 2021. Inequalities in cross-sectional SDQ scores among 5 and 8 year olds, before and during the pandemic, were modelled using linear regression. Additionally, interactions between time (before/during pandemic) and: sex, ethnicity, family structure, parental education, employment, household income and area deprivation on mental health were explored. RESULTS: A trend towards poorer mental health between 2011 and 2019 continued during the pandemic (b=0.12, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.17). Children with coupled, highly educated, employed parents and higher household income experienced greater mental health declines during the pandemic than less advantaged groups, leading to narrowed inequalities. For example, the mean difference in child SDQ scores for unemployed compared with employed parents was 2.35 prepandemic (1.72 to 2.98) and 0.02 during the pandemic (-1.10 to 1.13). Worse scores related to male sex and area deprivation were maintained. White children experienced worse mental health than other ethnicities, and greater declines during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: Mental health among UK 5 and 8 year olds deteriorated during the pandemic, although several inequalities narrowed. Interventions are needed to improve child mental health while ensuring inequalities do not widen.

Working from home and intimate partner violence among cis-women during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from a global, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) may have been exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis aimed to determine how employment disruption during COVID-19, including working from home, was associated with IPV experience among cis-gendered women. METHODS: The International Sexual Health and Reproductive health (I-SHARE) study is a cross-sectional online survey implemented in 30 countries during the pandemic. Samples used convenience, online panel, and population-representative methods. IPV was a pre-specified primary outcome, measured using questions from a validated World Health Organisation instrument. Conditional logistic regression modelling was used to quantify the associations between IPV and changes to employment during COVID-19, adjusted for confounding. RESULTS: 13,416 cis-gender women, aged 18-97, were analysed. One third were from low and middle income countries, and two thirds from high income countries. The majority were heterosexual (82.7%), educated beyond secondary-level (72.4%) and childless (62.7%). During COVID-19 33.9% women worked from home, 14.6% lost employment, and 33.1% continued to work on-site. 15.5% experienced some form of IPV. Women working from home experienced greater odds of IPV than those working on-site (adjusted OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.12-1.74, p = 0.003). This finding was robust independent of sampling strategy and country income. The association was primarily driven by an increase in psychological violence, which was more prevalent than sexual or physical violence. The association was stronger in countries with high gender inequality. CONCLUSIONS: Working from home may increase IPV risk globally. Workplaces offering working from home should collaborate with support services and research interventions to strengthen resiliency against IPV.

Intimate Partner Violence During COVID-19 Restrictions: A Study of 30 Countries From the I-SHARE Consortium.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) causes substantial physical and psychological trauma. Restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including lockdowns and movement restrictions, may exacerbate IPV risk and reduce access to IPV support services. This cross-sectional study examines IPV during COVID-19 restrictions in 30 countries from the International Sexual HeAlth and REproductive Health (I-SHARE) study conducted from July 20th, 2020, to February, 15th, 2021. IPV was a primary outcome measure adapted from a World Health Organization multicountry survey. Mixed-effects modeling was used to determine IPV correlates among participants stratified by cohabitation status. The sample included 23,067 participants from 30 countries. A total of 1,070/15,336 (7.0%) participants stated that they experienced IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. A total of 1,486/15,336 (9.2%) participants stated that they had experienced either physical or sexual partner violence before the restrictions, which then decreased to 1,070 (7.0%) after the restrictions. In general, identifying as a sexual minority and experiencing greater economic vulnerability were associated with higher odds of experiencing IPV during COVID-19 restrictions, which were accentuated among participants who were living with their partners. Greater stringency of COVID-19 restrictions and living in urban or semi-urban areas were associated with lower odds of experiencing IPV in some settings. The I-SHARE data suggest a substantial burden of IPV during COVID-19 restrictions. However, the restrictions were correlated with reduced IPV in some settings. There is a need for investing in specific support systems for survivors of IPV during the implementation of restrictions designed to contain infectious disease outbreaks.