Citation

Bradbury-Jones C, Nikupeteri A. J. Adv. Nurs. 2021; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2021, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/jan.14820

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

ntimate Partner Violence (IPV) is a form of violence and abuse that occurs between current or ex‐partners/spouses. It is the most type of abuse that falls within a broader category of domestic violence. It occurs in all relationship configurations, but its most prevalent form is by male perpetrators, directed at their female partners. An estimated one in three (35%) women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual IPV (or non‐partner sexual violence) in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2017). The reasons for IPV are complex and multifaceted and there is no simple, causal relationship. An explanation held by many is that IPV is underpinned by coercion and control, providing a fundamental means of one person being able to exercise dominance over another. This manifests as a number of abusive behaviours (that frequently co‐exist), such as emotional, physical, sexual and financial abuse and stalking.

When the world went into lockdown in early 2020 in response to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the pervasive message from governments and authorities was to stay safe at home. The problem is, however, that home for many people is far from a safe haven (Bradbury‐Jones & Isham, 2020). While it may well have provided a protective factor against the virus, home was a dangerous place for many people (especially women). Being shut‐off from family, friends, social circles and work colleagues played directly into the hands of perpetrators. Lockdown created a fertile breeding ground for coercion, control and isolation tactics. Calls to domestic abuse helplines rose exponentially at that time and there has been a plethora of literature and research reports that have captured the impacts on IPV as a result of restrictive, COVID‐related measures. We know then, that the pandemic and different phases of lockdown have had a direct, negative impact on IPV because of victims being literally trapped with their perpetrator, with limited avenues for accessing help and support. Early in the pandemic when the risks associated with lockdown on IPV were beginning to be reported, Bradbury‐Jones and Isham (2020) referred to the 'protection paradox', whereby measures to control the virus had the unintended consequence of increasing the control of many perpetrators. Since then, we have come to understand far more about the problem and yet more paradoxes have unfolded. We take the case of stalking and explore technology abuse, paper abuse and the 'old normal'...

Language: en