@article{ref1,
title="Unperceived intimate partner violence and women's health",
journal="Gaceta Sanitaria",
year="2013",
author="Sonego, Michela and Gandarillas, Ana and Zorrilla, Belen and Lasheras, Luisa and Pires, Marisa and Anes, Ana and Ordobás, María",
volume="27",
number="5",
pages="440-446",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: Women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV) often do not perceive themselves as abused. This study sought to estimate the health effects of unperceived IPV (uIPV), taking violence-free women as the reference, and to compare the effects of uIPV with those of perceived IPV (pIPV). METHOD: We performed a cross-sectional population study through telephone interviews of 2835 women aged 18 to 70 years living in the region of Madrid and having an ongoing intimate partner relationship or contact with a former partner in the preceding year. Based on 26 questions from the Conflict Tactics Scale-1 and the Enquête Nacional sur les Violences envers les Femmes en France and the question &quot;Do you feel abused by your partner?&quot; a variable was constructed in three categories, namely, the absence of IPV, uIPV and pIPV. Using logistic regression, we analyzed the association between health problems, medication use, health-service utilization and IPV (perceived and unperceived) vis-à-vis the absence of IPV. RESULTS: There were 247 cases of uIPV and 96 of pIPV (prevalences of 8.8% and 3.4%, respectively). The multivariate analysis showed that a substantial number of the outcomes explored were associated with uIPV, pIPV, or both. The highest odds ratios (ORs) were obtained for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9≥10) (uIPV: OR 3.4, 95% CI 2.4-3.8; and pIPV: 4.1, 95%CI 2.5-6.8). In most problems, the ORs did not significantly differ between the two types of IPV. CONCLUSIONS: uIPV is 2.6 times more frequent than pIPV and is associated with at least as many health problems as pIPV.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0213-9111",
doi="10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.11.009",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.11.009"
}