Sparks and Valencia PAA 2014 session107
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•293 views
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of the most common forms of violence against women worldwide. The most recent WHO (2013) reports show that nearly one third (30%) of women reported ever experiencing either physical IPV, with regional figures as large as 38%. Risk factors exist at the individual, couple and ecological levels, but no systematic study of models at these various levels has been attempted. The goal of this analysis is to present a systematic evaluation of competing models of IPV risk. Using a Bayesian modeling framework, we compare models at various levels and evaluate their performance in terms of explaining IPV risk. In general, individual-centric models fit the data better than the couple-centric models, and the best fitting model considered woman’s and couple’s effects, plus heterogeneity at the region level. Overall, in the Peruvian setting, partner violence is largely a product of individual and couple-level dynamics.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (14)
Similar to Sparks and Valencia PAA 2014 session107
Similar to Sparks and Valencia PAA 2014 session107 (20)
More from Corey Sparks
More from Corey Sparks (10)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Sparks and Valencia PAA 2014 session107
- 1. Intimate Partner Violence in Peru: An assessment of competing models Corey S. Sparks Alelhie Valencia Department of Demography Institute for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research The University of Texas at San Antonio
- 2. Introduction • Intimate partner violence (IPV) one of most common forms of violence against women worldwide, with between 10% and 71% of women reporting this experience. • IPV as a human rights issue • IPV as a public health issue • Protective factors: – Woman’s education, Rural residence, Access to support networks • Risk factors: – History of IPV in family, woman’s age, lower female status
- 3. Context of IPV in Peru • The WHO (2005) found Peru to have the highest rates of IPV experience in the world – Between 49 – 62% of women ever experienced, and between 17 – 25% of women experienced in the last year** • Highly urbanized, 77% of population • High maternal mortality rates • UN Development Program ranks Peru 77th in terms of gender equality – Low levels of women’s education ~47% – High women’s labor force participation ~68%**
- 4. Current Project • Within this context we propose to: – Systematically compare competing models of IPV – Focus on three levels of impact • Women’s characteristics • Couple’s characteristics • Ecological/Structural characteristics – Consider these three levels and allow for unobserved heterogeneity in IPV risk at both regional and local levels • Overall goal is to apply model comparison methodologies to assess which model(s) best fit the data
- 5. Data • Peru Continuous Demographic and Health Survey 2003-2008 – n=22,926 women responded to domestic violence questionnaire • Peruvian 2007 Census microdata – Form structural variables • DV: Ever-experienced physical violence by partner • IV: – Woman – Age, rural residence, education, #children, IPV history – Couple – Partner’s age, age difference, education difference, partner’s occupation, low SES HH, decision making (purchasing & sex) – Structural - %Women in professional occupations, %women in labor force, mean children/woman, %women with secondary education, %urban, % women with purchasing decision making power
- 6. Methods • Approximate Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling using INLA (http://www.r- inla.org/) • Bayesian modeling paradigm allows for comparison of models using DIC • Logistic Regression model – Unstructured random effects for department – Spatially structured random effects for PSU • Correlated IPV Risk
- 8. Results: Pattern of Risk • Risk factors:# children, IPV history, woman’s high status job, partner’s age, age difference, low HH SES, purchasing decision making, %of women having purchasing decision power • Protective factors: Woman’s age – older, rural residence • Woman-level, Couple-level, structural level
- 10. Conclusions • We see Peru depart from expected patterns of risk – No risk factor for education, opposite effect for women’s status • Both at woman and couple level • We see little role of structural level variables – Only women’s purchasing power • We do see considerable spatial heterogeneity in risk – This shows that rural areas have higher risk on average, but certain areas of cities have high risk
- 11. Thank You • Corey.sparks@utsa.edu • Lila.valencia@utsa.edu
Editor's Notes
- IPV is one of the most common forms of violence against women worldwide. Unlike males who are most likely to suffer violence at the hands of same-sex strangers or their acquaintances, females are more likely to suffer violence at the hands of someone they know, especially a current or former partner. In 1993, the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna brought global attention to the issue of violence against women, and a formal declaration to eliminate this violence was made. The World Conference and the Declaration of the Elimination of Violence against Women prompted research studies focused on issues of violence against women, especially relating to IPV. These studies helped to broaden the focus of IPV research and its policy implications by revealing the association of IPV to many public health issues. Now IPV is seen as both a human rights issue as well as a public health issue. Since the World Conference in Vienna and the Declaration of the Elimination of Violence against Women, hundreds of studies focusing on IPV have been conducted. However, more research is needed to fully understand the determinants of and protective factors against IPV, especially in developing countries, such as those in Latin America.
- This estimate may be high, the UN presents rates of 31% ever, 11% in last year Many women suffered sexual violence during a period of internal conflict from 1980-2000 Low level of full time women’s labor ~35% according to UN