Prevalence of Domestic Violence in a Pregnant Military Population

Abstract

III.

Domestic violence screening of obstetric triage patients in a military population

“…This is consistent with our previous study of a pregnant military population screened at initial entry for prenatal care, which found that separated/divorced women were at increased risk of abuse by a partner or important person. 22 However, our current study did not find an increased risk for physical or emotional abuse in single or never-married women when compared with married women. Although causality is not demonstrated, separated and divorced women and women with a history of abuse may be more likely to be in strained or abusive relationships, or have a history of such relationships that lead to separation or divorce.…”

“…Our previous observational prevalence study of a pregnant military population presenting for routine prenatal care (mostly women in the first trimester of pregnancy) had a 14.5% prevalence of domestic violence. 22 The higher prevalence of domestic violence (22.6%) in our current study of pregnant women presenting for emergency care may have been due to the fact that women were screened at a later time in their pregnancies, with a mean gestational age of 35 weeks. A previous study has shown that more women reported domestic violence during the latter part of pregnancy.…”

“…A previous study screening pregnant women presenting for initial obstetric care at a large Military Treatment Facility found a 14.5% prevalence of domestic violence. 22 The military environment possesses a unique set of circumstances and stressors that may directly impact family violence. These include periods of family separation, tension between the demands of duty and the demands of family life, stress related to the military mission, frequent relocation, perceived dangers associated with military training and combat, as well as financial stressors.…”

Prevalence of Self-Reported Intimate Partner Violence Victimization Among Military Personnel: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A high quality study of active duty personnel reported past-year prevalence of clinically significant physical abuse (defined as acts that result in significant impact or high potential for impact) to be 3.45% (Foran et al, 2011). Two studies of pregnant active duty females found past-year physical IPV prevalence rates of around 3% (Lutgendorf et al, 2012;Lutgendorf et al, 2009).…”

“…Certain military characteristics such as service branch, rank, engagement status and having left service have been shown to be associated with a range of psychosocial outcomes such as relationship satisfaction (Hendrix et al, 1995;Riggs et al, 1998), mental health (Baker et al, 2009;Cameron et al, 2016;Hatch et al, 2013;Iversen et al, 2009;Sher et al, 2012) and risk of aggressive behaviour (Jordan et al, 1992;MacManus et al, 2012;MacManus et al, 2013;MacManus et al, 2015) and may impact on risk of IPV victimisation (Cantos et al, 1994;Foran et al, 2011;Lutgendorf et al, 2009;Marshall et al, 2005;Rosen et al, 2002a).…”