SynthesisWomen's health (London, England)
Global prevalence of domestic violence against adults during COVID-19 and its determinants: A systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression analysis.
Synthesis in Women's health (London, England). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundDomestic violence (DV) is a pressing public health issue with worldwide implications. Crises like the COVID-19 pandemic can exacerbate this problem, as social and personal challenges intersect with the disruptive effects of health measures.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the prevalence of DV during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify its associated determinants.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources and methodsA comprehensive review of the literature in PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Covid-19 register up to July 2024 were conducted. Pooled prevalence of DV during COVID-19, including overall and subtype prevalence were assessed, while also extracting associated factors and determinants. Meta-regression analyzed the impact of determinants on heterogeneity. A random effects model estimated the pooled prevalence using the meta-prop method, applying Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation for variance stabilization.ResultsA total of 37 qualifying studies were included in our final analysis with a total sample size of 160,701 individuals. The overall pooled prevalence of DV, regardless of subtypes, was 13% (95% CI: 12-14%). Among the different subtypes, psychological violence had the highest pooled prevalence of 24% (95% CI: 19-28%), while financial violence had the lowest pooled prevalence of 7% (95% CI: 6-9%). Sexual violence (11%, 95% CI: 9-12%), physical violence (10%, 95% CI: 9-12%), and violence involving threats and controlling behaviors 11% (95% CI: 8-13%) had approximately similar prevalence rates. Meta-regression analyses showed the risk of overall DV was significantly higher among younger women Risk Difference (RD) =15% (P<0.001), 40 years and younger individuals RD=12% (P<0.001), and those living in developing countries RD=14% (P<0.001) compared to their counterparts. On average, women had a higher risk of overall DV than the elderly and men RD=9% (P<0.001).ConclusionThe study revealed a concerning global prevalence of DV at 13% during the COVID-19 pandemic, with psychological violence being the most common subtype. Women and young adults were identified as particularly vulnerable, with risk differentials of 15% and 12%, respectively, notably higher in developing countries (14%). This comprehensive assessment of DV prevalence and determinants offers valuable insights for future research and public health strategies.RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42022351634.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.