Exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) incurs significant public health consequences. Understanding risk markers can accelerate prevention and response efforts, important in settings like Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) where resources are scarce. In this study, four databases were searched to identify studies that examined risk markers for male-to-female physical IPV. With application of the socioecological model, we analyzed 11 risk markers for male physical IPV perpetration (with 71 effect sizes) and 16 risk markers for female physical IPV victimization (with 131 effect sizes) in SSA from 51 studies. For male IPV perpetration, we found medium-to-large effect sizes for six risk markers: perpetrating emotional abuse and sexual IPV, witnessing parental IPV, being abused as a child, cohabitating (not married), and exhibiting controlling behaviors. We found small effect sizes for substance use. Employment, age, marital status, and education were not significant risk markers. For female IPV victimization, a medium effect size was found for post-traumatic stress symptoms. Small effect sizes were found for reporting depressive symptoms, being abused as a child, witnessing parental IPV, and reporting drug and alcohol use. Rural residence, approval of violence, length of relationship, income, education, employment, age, marital status, and religiosity were not significant risk markers. Findings highlight opportunities for screening and intervention at the couple level, show the need to test and incorporate interventions for IPV in mental health treatment, and emphasize the importance of further research on sociodemographic risk markers and the interventions that target them.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive issue, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it has been speculated that the prevalence rates of IPV increased. This paper aims to understand how pandemic-specific distress was related to experiencing and perpetrating IPV. Using self-reported survey data from 371 individuals living in the United States, this study used multiple logistic regressions to examine how reports of distress related to working from home, working outside the home, isolation, stay-at-home orders, mask mandates, physical and mental health, finances, interpersonal relationships, taking care of children, and online learning for children, as well as reports of partner conflict regarding COVID-19, were associated with physical, psychological, and sexual IPV perpetration and victimization. Our results indicated that distress related to family relationships, taking care of children, and COVID-19 as a source of conflict were all associated with an increased risk of IPV victimization, while distress related to mask mandates and friendships was associated with a decreased risk. Distress related to physical health, family relationships, taking care of children, and COVID-19 being a source of conflict were associated with an increased risk of IPV perpetration, while distress related to mental health and friendships was associated with a decreased risk. Implications for researchers and clinicians are discussed.

Approximately 50% of both men and women will experience emotional intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime—a form of violence highly associated with other forms of IPV—making it important to develop further understanding of for assessment and treatment purposes. The bio-psycho-social model was used to guide the study. Utilizing data from 181 studies, yielding 348 effect sizes, we conducted a meta-analysis examining mental and physical health correlates with emotional IPV perpetration and victimization. We also examined if mental and physical health correlates were significantly stronger for emotional IPV perpetration or victimization, as well as if correlates were stronger for men or women. Suicidal ideation, post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depressive symptoms, borderline personality disorder (PD), psychological distress, physical pain, trauma, anger, shame, poor physical health, antisocial PD, and somatic symptoms were significantly associated with emotional IPV victimization. Borderline PD, narcissism, emotional dysregulation, anger, post-traumatic stress, antisocial PD, psychopathy, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and trauma were significantly associated with emotional IPV perpetration. Anger, emotional dysregulation, and psychopathology were stronger correlates for emotional IPV perpetration compared to victimization, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psychological distress were stronger correlates for victimization. PTSD and suicidal ideation were stronger correlates of IPV victimization for women than men, and anger was a significantly stronger correlate of IPV perpetration for women than men. This study highlights the importance of a holistic approach when working with victims and perpetrators of IPV, focusing on the importance of taking all aspects of the bio-psycho-social model into account.

Emotional intimate partner violence (IPV) is the most common form of IPV and frequently co-occurs with other forms of IPV. Risk factors of IPV can give insight to potential pathways and consequences associated with IPV, enhancing treatment efforts. This metaanalysis examined relationship dynamics associated with IPV perpetration and victimization. Our study found victimization of controlling behavior, demand/ withdrawal relationship pattern, perpetration of controlling behavior, jealousy, relationship distress, perpetrator's power in the relationship, anxious attachment, and traditional gender roles were all significantly associated with IPV perpetration. For IPV victimization, victimization of controlling behaviors, fear of the perpetrator, relationship distress, anxious and avoidant attachment, and traditional gender roles were all found to be significantly associated. Relationship satisfaction was found to be negatively associated with emotional IPV perpetration and victimization. Implications for clinicians are discussed.