Sonagachi Call Girls Services 9907093804 @24x7 High Class Babes Here Call Now
4.4.2 Angela Taft
1. Angela Taft PhD and Lyn Watson
PhD, Senior Research Fellows
Violence against young
women: findings from the
Australian Longitudinal
Study on Women’s Health
2. Overview
To describe associations between:
• forms of violence against young women
• women’s socio-demographic
characteristics
• health status and social support
• sexual and reproductive health
3. WHA questions about violence
• In the last twelve months have you
experienced
– Being pushed, grabbed, shoved, kicked
or hit?
– Being forced to take part in unwanted
sexual activity?
• Have you ever had a violent
relationship with a partner/spouse?
4. Our secondary analysis
(Taft, Watson and Lee, 2002)
Mutually exclusive categories in
surveys 1 & 2
1. No abuse
2. Recent (< 12 months) physical
or sexual abuse but not by a
partner
3. Ever experienced partner
abuse
4. Partner violence and recent
6. Age at first intercourse and violence
Age at first intercourse and violence in Survey 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Age in years
%
none
phys/sex
everpart
partvio+
Odds = 2.6
Odds = 3.1
Survey 4 16.8% women reported Childhood Sexual Abuse
7. Which young Australian women are
most associated with violence?
• Poorly educated
• Unemployed or disabled
• In a de facto relationship, separated
or divorced
• Living in a remote community
• With low levels of social support
8. Young women, violence and
pregnancy, adjusted ORs
0
20
40
60
Survey 1, 1996 Survey 2, 2000
No violence Non-partner violence Ever partner violence Partner and recent violence
4.0
2.6
1.4
1.4
2.7
4.7
%
9. Age at first birth and violence
Cumulative %'s for age at first birth byviolence
(all women)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
10. Young women, violence and live
births
no abuse recent, not partner ever partner abuse partner + recent violence
0
10
20
30
40
Survey 1, 1996 Survey 2, 2000
3.7
4.0
2.7
3.5
%
11. Young women, violence and
pregnancy outcomes, adj ORs
1996
OR
2000
OR
No violence
1.0 1.0
Non-partner Miscarriage
2.0
TOP
2.4
Both
3.3
Birth & loss
NS
Not Significant
Ever partner Loss only
NS
Birth & misc
1.7
Birth, misc & TOP
2.4
Term birth and loss
1.9
Prem & loss
2.4
Stillbirth+/- birth/loss
2 .6
Partner and Miscarriage Term birth & loss
12. Association with depression and specific
groups
Odds
No TOP
TOP first 1996
TOP first in 2000
No births
One birth
Two or more births
No violence
Partner violence 1996, 1996+2000
Partner violence 2000
Other phys/sexual violence 1996
Other phys/sexual violence 2000
1.00
1.37
1.52
1.00
1.20
1.44
1.00
2.31
2.45
1.83
2.10
13. Association with depression and specific
groups
Odds Adjusted
Odds
No TOP
TOP first 1996
TOP first in 2000
No births
One birth
Two or more births
No violence
Partner violence 1996, 1996+2000
Partner violence 2000
Other phys/sexual violence 1996
Other phys/sexual violence 2000
1.00
1.37
1.52
1.00
1.20
1.44
1.00
2.31
2.45
1.83
2.10
1.00
1.04
1.22
1.00
1.04
1.26
1.00
2.06
2.12
1.77
2.00
15. Violence against women and % high
risk drinking
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1996 2000
No violence
Non-partner violence
Ex partner violence
Partner+ recent
violence
16. Violence against women and depression
(SF-36 mental health scores)
no abuse recent, not partner ever partner abuse partner + recent violence
40
50
Survey 1, 1996 Survey 2, 2000
17. The value of social support
• Compared with those with good social
support and no abuse
– In 1996, those with none or little
• OR=1.6 as likely to report Non PV and Ex PV
• OR=2.7 as likely to report partner and recent violence
– In 2000
• OR=2.6 as likely to report Non PV
• OR=1.9 as likely to report Ex PV
• OR=5.5 as likely to report partner and recent violence
• Women whose violence had decreased
between 1996 and 2000 reported better
social support
18. What improves for women whose
levels of violence reduces?
• Their mental health
• Increased social support
• Less eating disorders
• Reduced smoking and drinking and
drug-taking
• Reduction in some STDs
• Desire for more education
• Increased use of health services
Pay respects to traditional owners and thank college for inviting me to speak about the development of these innovatory guidelines.
Acknowledge co-investigators, Kelsey H, Dept of Gen Prac, U Melb, Gene Feder, Dept Prim Care Rsch and Development, Queen Mary’s School of Med and Dentistry, London
When we look independently/separately at how each of these factors is associated with depression, compared with those young women who haven’t had an abortion, the odds of becoming depressed are significant for women with abortions before 1996 and after, compared with no births, of having two or more and twice the likelihood for those experiencing any violence.
However, when we add women’s socio-demographic characteristics (remember disadvantage is related to all these factors) and then add all these inter-related factors into the same model, the only significant factor to retain an independent effect is violence. Terminations and having children retain a slightly elevated risk but lose their significance. While the effects of partner violence are reduced, they are all still significant and remain at roughly double the risk.
NPV 1.9, Ex PV 1.9 P&RV 3.7 1996
2000
NPV 1.8
Ex PV 2.5
P&RV 3.2