2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10896-020-00225-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

When “Shelter-in-Place” Isn’t Shelter That’s Safe: a Rapid Analysis of Domestic Violence Case Differences during the COVID-19 Pandemic and Stay-at-Home Orders

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
56
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
2
56
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The increase in 016-calls during the months of lockdown coexisted, however, with a decrease in IPV complaints, female fatalities, and POs granted [ 20 , 21 ]. Although the courts and the police were considered essential services during the lockdown, access to other sources of support, such as associations or health services, may still have been limited during this period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The increase in 016-calls during the months of lockdown coexisted, however, with a decrease in IPV complaints, female fatalities, and POs granted [ 20 , 21 ]. Although the courts and the police were considered essential services during the lockdown, access to other sources of support, such as associations or health services, may still have been limited during this period.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite the growing proliferation of publications about both the impact of the COVID-19 crisis and the control measures adopted to manage its impact on IPV, studies using empirical qualitative or quantitative data are still scarce [ 14 ]. Most studies that do exist are cross-sectional and focus on evaluating the socioeconomic impact and perception of the seriousness of violent events, using very specific samples (health-service users, affected women and children, and/or women and children from minority groups) with limited follow-up time [ 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. Studies on the impact of the COVID-19 crisis using indicators such as 016-type helpline calls, IPV complaints, and protection measures are still scarce [ 20 , 21 , 22 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the study by Mohler et al (2020) revealed an interesting fact. Even though there was a significant increase in domestic violence calls-for-service, eventually it did not lead to an increase in reported assaults during the COVID-19 outbreak (January-April 2020) On the other hand, in Chicago, IL, a slight decrease in domestic violence cases seemed to occur, compared with those of the previous year (2,251 cases in March 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak compared to 2,367 cases in March 2019; McLay, 2021). Similarly, no significant differences in domestic violence cases between 2019 and 2020 were recorded in Mexico City and Canada (Silverio-Murillo et al, 2020), although there was a correlation between family stress and violence and financial difficulties as well as difficulties in maintaining social ties (for women) in the COVID-19 lockdown in Canada (Beland et al, 2020; Table 2).…”
Section: North America Main Findingsmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Although evidence is still emerging, reports in the media and grey literature suggest increased drinking in the home in some countries [127][128][129] (largely off-setting reductions in on-premises drinking). These reports have appeared alongside several studies showing increased abusive head trauma among children [130] and family violence [131,132]. There is some concern that, pressured by commercial vested interests [133,134], governments will allow continuation of deregulatory changes originally intended as temporary, leading to increased risks of IV and trauma in the home [123,124,126].…”
Section: Alcohol Consumption-centred Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%