SAFETYLIT WEEKLY UPDATE

We compile citations and summaries of about 400 new articles every week.
RSS Feed

HELP: Tutorials | FAQ
CONTACT US: Contact info

Search Results

Journal Article

Citation

Gupta J, Willie TC, Harris C, Campos PA, Falb KL, García Moreno C, Diaz Olavarrieta C, Okechukwu CA. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2018; 72(7): 605-610.

Affiliation

Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, BMJ Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1136/jech-2017-209681

PMID

29514921

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Disrupting women's employment is a strategy that abusive partners could use to prevent women from maintaining economic independence and stability. Yet, few studies have investigated disruptions in employment among victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in low-income and middle-income countries. Moreover, even fewer have sought to identify which female victims of IPV are most vulnerable to such disruptions.

METHODS: Using baseline data from 947 women in Mexico City enrolled in a randomised controlled trial, multilevel latent class analysis (LCA) was used to classify women based on their reported IPV experiences. Furthermore, multilevel logistic regression analyses were performed on a subsample of women reporting current work (n=572) to investigate associations between LCA membership and IPV-related employment disruptions.

RESULTS: Overall, 40.6% of women who were working at the time of the survey reported some form of work-related disruption due to IPV. LCA identified four distinct classes of IPV experiences: Low Physical and Sexual Violence (39.1%); High Sexual and Low Physical Violence class (9.6%); High Physical and Low Sexual Violence and Injuries (36.5%); High Physical and Sexual Violence and Injuries (14.8%). Compared with women in the Low Physical and Sexual Violence class, women in the High Physical and Sexual Violence and Injuries class and women in the High Physical and Low Sexual Violence and Injuries class were at greater risk of work disruption (adjusted relative risk (ARR) 2.44, 95% CI 1.80 to 3.29; ARR 2.05, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.70, respectively). No other statistically significant associations emerged.

CONCLUSION: IPV, and specific patterns of IPV experiences, must be considered both in work settings and, more broadly, by economic development programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01661504.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.


Language: en

Keywords

Latin America; Mexico; economic empowerment; employment; latent class analysis; violence against women

NEW SEARCH


All SafetyLit records are available for automatic download to Zotero & Mendeley
Print