Abstract
Background:
Interpersonal violence (IPV) is an issue of major public health concern, with 24% of Kenyan women reporting physical violence perpetrated by a current husband or partner. IPV has profound impacts on physical and mental health outcomes, particularly for pregnant women; it has been found to increase the risk of perinatal mortality, low birth weight, and preterm birth. This study aims to identify variables associated with IPV and assess the effects of IPV experience on prenatal and peripartum maternal healthcare in Migori County, Kenya. Findings build on a previous study that investigated a smaller region of Migori County.
Methods:
Responses to cross-sectional household surveys conducted in six wards of Migori County, Kenya in 2021 from female respondents aged 18 and older were analyzed. The survey contained validated screening tools for interpersonal violence. Group-wise comparisons, and bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to describe community prevalence, factors associated with IPV against women, and the effect of IPV exposure on prenatal and peripartum health care.
Results:
This study finds that 2,306 (36.7%) of the 6,290 respondents had experienced lifetime IPV. IPV experience was associated with the age group 25–49 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.208; 95%CI: [1.045–1.397]; p = 0.011), monogamous marriage [aOR 2.152; 95%CI: (1.426–3.248); p < 0.001], polygamous marriage [aOR 2.924; 95%CI: (1.826–4.683); p < 0.001], being widowed/divorced/separated [aOR 1.745; 95%CI: (1.094–2.786); p < 0.001], feeling an attitude of “sometimes okay” toward wife beating [aOR 2.002 95%CI: (1.651, 2.428); p < 0.001], having been exposed to IPV in girlhood [aOR 2.525; 95%CI: (2.202–2.896); p < 0.001] and feeling safe in the current relationship [aOR 0.722; 95%CI: (0.609, 0.855); p < 0.001]. A depression score of mild [aOR 1.482; 95%CI: (1.269, 1.73); p < 0.001] and severe [aOR 2.403; 95%CI: (1.429, 4.039); p = 0.001] was also associated with IPV experience, and women who experienced emotional abuse were much more likely to have experienced IPV [aOR 10.462; 95% CI: (9.037, 12.112); p < 0.001]. Adjusted analyses showed that having experienced IPV was negatively associated with attending at least four antenatal care visits during the most recent pregnancy (OR 0.849, p = 0.044) and with having a skilled birth attendant (OR 0.638, p = 0.007).
Conclusions:
IPV is prevalent in Migori County, Kenya, with increased prevalence among women aged 25–49, those residing in West Kanyamkago, those in a monogamous or polygamous marriage, those who have been widowed/divorced/separated, and those with severe depressive symptoms. Further, IPV exposure is associated with lower use of maternal care services and may lead to worse maternal health outcomes. There is need for enhanced effort in addressing social and gender norms that perpetuate IPV, and this study can contribute to guiding policy interventions and community responses towards IPV.
1 Introduction
Interpersonal violence (IPV) is physical, sexual, or psychological harm perpetrated against another person (). IPV perpetrated by an intimate partner and gender-based violence against women has been described by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a major public health problem that warrants the intervention of healthcare systems (). Women are more likely to experience IPV; the United Nations’ Global Study on Homicide found that 82% of intimate partner homicide victims are female (). The WHO estimates that 27% of women have experienced IPV in the form of physical or sexual abuse over the course of their lifetime ().
To combat this issue, Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) broadly aims to achieve gender equality. Target 5.2 specifically aims to eliminate violence against women by 2030 (). The COVID-19 pandemic increased the urgency of this issue by increasing psychological and economic stressors globally. The isolation necessitated by the pandemic in many countries increased the vulnerability of women at risk for gender-based violence and made support services more difficult to access (). Rates of interpersonal violence rose worldwide, including in China, India, and the United States (–).
IPV has profound impacts on health outcomes, beyond homicide alone. Women who have experienced IPV have increased emergency room, outpatient, inpatient, and mental health visits (, ). A history of IPV predisposes women to increased risk of disordered eating, physical trauma, sexually transmitted infections, HIV/AIDs, mental health issues such as depression, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), suicidal ideation, and non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular and gastrointestinal conditions (, –).
The negative health effects of IPV extend beyond the victim, especially in the case of pregnant women. IPV has been found to cause increased risk of perinatal mortality (–). It has also been associated with increased incidence of low birth weight and preterm birth (, –). Mothers experiencing IPV are less likely to attend their prenatal appointments and more likely to begin prenatal healthcare visits later into their pregnancy (, –). In addition to neonatal complications, children born to mothers who have experienced IPV may face long-term effects on their wellbeing, as maternal history of IPV has been found to impact the social-emotional development of their children (). The experience of IPV may be cyclical for some children because growing up in a home where IPV is prevalent has been found to increase the risk of experiencing or perpetuating IPV in the future (, ).
In Kenya, the lifetime prevalence of IPV in women is estimated to be 38% by the WHO. This is 1.4 times higher than the global average (27%) and 1.15 times higher than the average in sub-Saharan Africa (33%) (). Domestic violence is a leading cause of preventable deaths among young women in Kenya (). According to Kenya's 2022 Demographic and Health Survey, 33.9% of women have experienced physical violence, and 13.0% of women have experienced sexual violence (). A current husband or intimate partner perpetrated 53.9% of the physical violence and 70.9% of the sexual violence ever-married or partnered Kenyan women experienced ().
Although Kenya has legal protections for these women, such as the Protection Against Domestic Violence Act of 2015, spousal rape continues not to be criminalized (). IPV in Kenya has been associated with young marital age, low wealth index, urban residence, being 40–49 years of age, depression, minimal educational attainment, drug and alcohol abuse, and higher risk of contracting HIV infection (, , ). Kenyan women who have experienced IPV are less likely to attend antenatal care visits, less likely to deliver at a healthcare facility, and 40% less likely to access skilled delivery attendants during childbirth (, ). During COVID-19, rates of IPV in Kenya increased with sexual violence offences increasing by as much as 35% (, ).
According to Kenya's 2022 Demographic and Health Survey (DHS), out of 47 counties, Migori county in southwestern Kenya has the fourth highest proportion of women who reported physical violence (51.1%) and eighth highest proportion of women who reported sexual violence (16.7%) since the age of 15 (). In the 2018 Kenya population-based HIV impact assessment, Migori county had the fourth highest HIV prevalence, at 13% (). Although this question was not included on the 2022 DHS, the 2014 DHS showed that the women of Migori county have the lowest average age of first sexual intercourse (17.1 years) out of all Kenyan counties (). The aforementioned variables have all been found to increase the risk of IPV (, ). To remedy IPV, community health workers (CHWs) in Kenya have been found to provide effective support, but there is room for improvement via training regarding IPV identification and prevention strategies (, ).
The Lwala Community Alliance (Lwala) is a non-governmental organization that serves to promote the health and well-being of communities in Migori County, Kenya. Lwala operates a health center in North Kamagambo and is working with the Migori County government to scale its community-led health model throughout the county. The model incorporates traditional birth attendants into professionalized community health worker cadres and is distinguished by its consistent payment, supportive supervision, and proactive community case finding and case management. To better understand community needs and measure the impact of programming, Lwala has conducted longitudinal cross-sectional community household surveys (). The surveys include IPV assessment, which allowes for measurement of the prevalence of IPV in the Lwala catchment area. The goals of our study are to identify changes in IPV prevalence with the expansion of the survey's geographic reach, characterize variables associated with IPV, and to assess the effects of past IPV experience on maternal healthcare utilization. Such an analysis provides hyperlocal data to identify possible points of intervention to reduce IPV as well as provides justification for developing an array of timely interventions given IPV's negative impact on maternal outcomes in a setting with one of the highest HIV rates in the country.
2 Methods
2.1 Study setting
Migori County (Figure 1) is located in western Kenya and has a population of approximately 1.1 million (). The economy is primarily reliant on subsistence farming with fishing being prevalent in areas bordering Lake Victoria. In 2007, Lwala programming started in North Kamagambo in Rongo sub-county within Migori county. Since then, Lwala programming has expanded with additions in East Kamagambo in 2018, followed by South Kamagambo in 2019 both of which were surveyed in 2021. Also included in the 2021 survey was Central Kamagambo, where programming began after survey administration in 2021. Finally, the survey included two wards of Awendo sub-county intended for future programming (North Sakwa and Central Sakwa) and two nearby control areas without planned programming (Central Kanyamkago and West Kanyamkago).
Figure 1
2.2 Sampling and survey
The details of the sampling methodology and the resulting survey have been previously described in the survey protocol (
The cross-sectional, population-based survey used validated tools to reproducibly record numerous health metrics. To capture IPV metrics specifically, survey questions were adapted from two clinically validated screening tools for partner violence: the Abuse Assessment Screen (
2.3 Statistical analysis
IPV was defined as being physically assaulted or forced to perform sexual acts by another person and defined based upon the aforementioned validated screening tools for interpersonal violence: Abuse Assessment Screen and the Partner Violence Screen (
2.4 Ethical approval
The protocol and study design were approved by the Ethics and Scientific Review Committee at AMREF Health Africa (AMREF-ESRC P452/2018) and the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University (IRB #: 20-09-18). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to the survey. A research license was obtained from the Kenya National Commission for Science and Technology (NACOSTI/P/21/8776).
3 Results
3.1 Demographics
The total population included in this analysis was 6,290 females, 2,306 (36.7%) of whom had experienced IPV. The median age of all participating women was 27 years (Table 1). The majority (1,197, 78.6%) of women were in married, monogamous relationships. Religions practiced by participants included Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) (2,566, 40.8%), Catholic (979, 15.6%), Protestant (1,297, 20.1%), and Roho (1,063, 16.9%), while 622 (6.6%) of women responded with “other”. Only 90 (1.43%) women had no education, while the highest level of education attained by 3,371 (53.6%) women was primary school, and 2,829 (45.0%) had completed secondary school or higher.
Table 1
| Variable | IPV-negative | IPV-positive | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 3,984 (63.3%) | 2,306 (36.7%) | 6,290 |
| Region | |||
| North Kamagambo | 516 (64.5%) | 284 (35.5%) | 800 |
| East Kamagambo | 492 (61%) | 315 (39%) | 807 |
| Central Kamagambo | 525 (64.5%) | 289 (35.5%) | 814 |
| South Kamagambo | 506 (65%) | 272 (35%) | 778 |
| Central Kanyamkago | 488 (64.9%) | 264 (35.1%) | 752 |
| West Kanyamkago | 454 (58.1%) | 327 (41.9%) | 781 |
| North Sakwa | 520 (63.4%) | 300 (36.6%) | 820 |
| Central Sakwa | 483 (65.4%) | 255 (34.6%) | 738 |
| Age (median, IQR) | 27 (23, 32) | 28 (24,34) | 27 (23, 33) |
| Age category | |||
| 18–24 | 1,368 (69.3%) | 607 (30.7%) | 1,975 |
| 25–49 | 2,455 (60.6%) | 1,595 (39.4%) | 4,050 |
| 50+ | 161 (60.8%) | 104 (39.3%) | 265 |
| Religion | |||
| SDA | 1,684 (65.6%) | 882 (34.4%) | 2,566 |
| Catholic | 609 (62.2%) | 370 (37.8%) | 979 |
| Protestant | 797 (62.9%) | 470 (37.1%) | 1,267 |
| Roho | 632 (59.5%) | 431 (40.5%) | 1,063 |
| Other | 262 (63.1%) | 153 (36.9%) | 415 |
| Marital status | |||
| Single | 217 (82.5%) | 46 (17.5%) | 263 |
| Married monogamous/cohabitating | 3,145 (63.6%) | 1,797 (36.4%) | 4,942 |
| Married polygamous | 233 (50.3%) | 230 (49.7%) | 463 |
| Widowed/divorced/separated | 389 (62.5%) | 233 (37.5%) | 622 |
| Highest level of education | |||
| No education | 49 (54.4%) | 41 (45.6%) | 90 |
| Primary | 2,026 (60.1%) | 1,345 (39.9%) | 3,371 |
| Secondary+ | 1,909 (67.5%) | 920 (32.5%) | 2,829 |
| Experience of emotional abuse | |||
| No | 3,612 (78.0%) | 1,022 (22.1%) | 4,634 |
| Yes | 372 (22.5%) | 1,284 (77.5%) | 1,656 |
| IPV exposure in girlhood | |||
| No | 3,154 (73.2%) | 1,157 (26.8%) | 4,311 |
| Yes | 818 (41.8%) | 1,138 (58.2%) | 1,956 |
| Feels safe in current relationship | |||
| No | 843 (66.8%) | 419 (33.2%) | 1,262 |
| Yes | 3,057 (62.6%) | 1,823 (37.4%) | 4,880 |
| Ever HIV tested | |||
| No | 35 (70.0%) | 15 (30.0%) | 50 |
| Yes | 3,941 (63.3%) | 2,289 (36.7%) | 6,230 |
| Depression score | |||
| None | 2,528 (69.9%) | 1,087 (30.1%) | 3,615 |
| Mild | 752 (53.1%) | 665 (46.9%) | 1,417 |
| Moderate | 369 (59.5%) | 251 (40.5%) | 620 |
| Moderately severe | 215 (56.0%) | 169 (44.0%) | 384 |
| Severe | 40 (36.0%) | 71 (64.0%) | 111 |
| Childhood mortality (last 5 years) | |||
| No | 3,864 (63.3%) | 2,240 (36.7%) | 6,104 |
| Yes | 52 (61.9%) | 32 (38.1%) | 84 |
| Attitude supportive of wife beating | |||
| Never okay | 3,637 (65.8%) | 1,889 (34.2%) | 5,526 |
| Other (sometimes okay) | 347 (45.4%) | 417 (54.6%) | 764 |
| Currently pregnant | |||
| No | 3,587 (63.5%) | 2,060 (36.5%) | 5,647 |
| Yes | 387 (62.2%) | 235 (37.8%) | 622 |
| Wealth quartile | |||
| Severely poor | 951 (60.5%) | 622 (39.5%) | 1,573 |
| Poor | 985 (62.7%) | 587 (37.3%) | 1,572 |
| Vulnerable | 960 (61.0%) | 613 (39.0%) | 1,573 |
| Non-poor | 1,088 (69.2%) | 484 (30.8%) | 1,572 |
Demographics of respondents.
This table shows the demographic breakdown of 6,290 women living in Migori County, Kenya who were surveyed in 2021 by the Lwala Community Alliance community household survey. The group of women was divided into those who had experienced IPV according to their survey responses (IPV-positive) and those who had not (IPV-negative).
Only 46 (17.5%) of the 263 single women surveyed had experienced IPV, which was the smallest group of IPV-positive women among all demographic characteristics analyzed. In four of the 46 analyzed variable groups, greater than 50% of respondents identified as IPV-positive: women who responded “yes” to experiencing emotional abuse (1,284, 77.5%), women who were exposed to IPV during girlhood (1,138, 58.2%), women who had a depression score of “severe” (71, 64.0%), and women who responded “other/sometimes okay” when asked about attitude toward wife beating (417, 54.6%).
3.2 Types of emotional and physical harm experienced by female survey respondents
Table 2 shows emotional and physical harm experienced by the women of Migori county at the hands of the general community, their family, and their partners. 1,874 (29.8%) women had been hit, kicked, punched, pushed, or otherwise hurt by someone in their family or in the community, while 434 (6.9%) women responded they had been involved in forced sexual activities.
Table 2
| N (%) yes | |
|---|---|
| General questions (not partner specific) | |
| Hit, kicked, punched, pushed, or otherwise hurt by someone in your family or in the communitya | 1,874 (29.8%) |
| Forced sexual activitiesa | 434 (6.9%) |
| Husband/partner specific questions | |
| Push you, shake you, or throw something at you?a | 1,420 (22.6%) |
| Slap you or twist your arm?a | 1,543 (24.5%) |
| Punch you with his fist or with something that could hurt you?a | 943 (15.0%) |
| Kick you or drag you?a | 643 (10.2%) |
| Try to strangle you or burn you?a | 282 (4.5%) |
| Threaten you with a knife, gun or other type of weapon? | 263 (4.2%) |
| Attack you with a knife, gun, or other type of weapon?a | 231 (3.7%) |
| Physically force you to have sexual intercourse, even when you did not want to?a | 318 (5.1%) |
| Force you to perform other types of sexual acts when you did not want to?a | 276 (4.4%) |
| Say or do something to humiliate you in front of other people? | 1,588 (25.3%) |
| Threaten you or someone close to you with harm? | 1,004 (16.0%) |
| Insult you or make you feel bad about yourself? | 1,478 (23.5%) |
| All are out of 6,290 | |
Types of emotional and physical harm experienced by respondents.
all marked items were included in this paper's definition of interpersonal violence.
This table shows the questions related to emotional abuse and IPV and the proportion of respondents who answered “yes” to these questions. The number of respondents who answered yes, as well as the percentage calculated by a simple fraction, are included.
As for husband and partner specific questions, the most reported harm experienced was a partner who humiliated their partner in front of others by saying or doing something (1,588, 25.3%). Other harmful scenarios that were experienced by greater than 20% of the 6,290 respondents included: being slapped or having an arm twisted (1,543, 24.5%), being insulted or made to feel bad about oneself (1,475, 23.5%), and being punched, shaken, or having an object thrown at them (1,420, 22.6%). The most seldom reported experience was an attack with knife, gun, or other weapon by the partner, which only 231 (3.7%) of respondents experienced. Items marked by an asterisk (*) in Table 2 are included as types of violence in our definition of IPV.
3.3 Factors associated with IPV
When compared to women aged 18–24 and adjusted for all other variables, women aged 25–49 were at increased odds of experiencing IPV, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 1.208 (95%CI 1.045–1.397, p = 0.011) (Table 3). Women who were in (1) married, monogamous relationships, (2) married, polygamous relationships, or (3) widowed, divorced, or separated had higher odds of experiencing IPV than single women (p < 0.001 for all). The odds of experiencing IPV in women who also experienced emotional abuse was 10.462 times higher (95%CI 9.037–12.112, p < 0.001) than in women who had not, and 2.525 times higher for women who had been exposed to IPV in girlhood [95%CI: (2.202–2.896); p < 0.001]. The odds of women who felt unsafe in their current relationship experiencing IPV was lower than those who felt safe in their relationship (aOR 0.722, 95%CI 0.609–0.855, p < 0.001). The odds of a respondent with a “severe” depression score experiencing IPV were higher than all other depression scores (aOR 2.403, 95%CI 1.429, 4.039, p = 0.001) when compared with women who had a depression score of “none”. In contrast to the reference group who deemed wife beating to be “never okay”, respondents who held a “sometimes okay” attitude toward wife beating were twice as likely to experience IPV (aOR 2.002, 95%CI 1.651–2.428, p < 0.001). Appendix Table A1 shows the crude odds ratios and p-values for the logistic regression.
Table 3
| Variable | AOR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|
| Region | ||
| North Kamagambo | Ref | |
| East Kamagambo | 1.246 (0.971, 1.598) | 0.084 |
| Central Kamagambo | 0.855 (0.654, 1.119) | 0.254 |
| South Kamagambo | 0.956 (0.739, 1.237) | 0.732 |
| Central Kanyamkago | 0.928 (0.713, 1.207) | 0.576 |
| West Kanyamkago | 1.093 (0.848, 1.41) | 0.49 |
| North Sakwa | 1.051 (0.817, 1.351) | 0.701 |
| Central Sakwa | 1.000 (0.77, 1.3) | 0.998 |
| Age | ||
| 18–24 | Ref | |
| 25–49 | 1.208 (1.045, 1.397) | 0.011* |
| 50+ | 1.137 (0.766, 1.688) | 0.524 |
| Religion | ||
| SDA | Ref | |
| Catholic | 1.163 (0.96, 1.408) | 0.124 |
| Protestant | 1.044 (0.874, 1.247) | 0.633 |
| Roho | 1.209 (0.998, 1.465) | 0.053 |
| Other | 1.076 (0.821, 1.41) | 0.595 |
| Marital status | ||
| Single | Ref | |
| Married monogamous/cohabitating | 2.152 (1.426, 3.248) | <0.001*** |
| Married polygamous | 2.924 (1.826, 4.683) | <0.001*** |
| Widowed/divorced/separated | 1.745 (1.094, 2.786) | 0.02* |
| Highest level of education | ||
| No education | Ref | |
| Primary | 1.199 (0.631, 2.28) | 0.579 |
| Secondary+ | 0.957 (0.497, 1.843) | 0.896 |
| Experience of emotional abuse | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 10.462 (9.037, 12.112) | <0.001*** |
| IPV exposure in girlhood | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 2.525 (2.202, 2.896) | <0.001*** |
| Feels safe in current relationship | ||
| Yes | Ref | |
| No | 0.722 (0.609, 0.855) | <0.001*** |
| Ever HIV tested | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 1.124 (0.557, 2.269) | 0.744 |
| Depression Score | ||
| None | Ref | |
| Mild | 1.482 (1.269, 1.73) | <0.001*** |
| Moderate | 1.015 (0.812, 1.269) | 0.896 |
| Moderately severe | 0.995 (0.759, 1.305) | 0.972 |
| Severe | 2.403 (1.429, 4.039) | 0.001*** |
| Childhood mortality (last 5 years) | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 1.29 (0.76, 2.189) | 0.346 |
| Attitude supportive of wife beating | ||
| Never okay | Ref | |
| Sometimes okay | 2.002 (1.651, 2.428) | <0.001*** |
| Currently pregnant | ||
| No | Ref | |
| Yes | 1.134 (0.918, 1.401) | 0.242 |
| Wealth quintile | ||
| Non-poor | Ref | |
| Vulnerable | 0.998 (0.826, 1.206) | 0.982 |
| Poor | 0.842 (0.689, 1.028) | 0.091 |
| Severely poor | 0.846 (0.682, 1.048) | 0.125 |
Multivariate regression of factors associated with IPV.
This table includes the same variables as Table 1, but is a multivariate regression of those variables and their relationship with IPV. The adjusted odds ratio, as well as the 95% confidence interval are reported. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 are considered statistically significant.
Bold values indicate statistically significant findings.
denotes p ≤ 0.05.
denotes p ≤ 0.01.
denotes p ≤ 0.001.
3.4 Antenatal care visits
A total of 5,694 women (90.5%) had a child under five years of age and information available about antenatal care visits (ANC) (Table 4). Among these women, 4,390 (77.1%) attended at least four ANC visits during the pregnancy with this child. Adjusted for the variables in the IPV analyses, having experienced IPV was negatively associated with attending at least four antenatal care visits during the most recent pregnancy (OR 0.849, p = 0.044).
Table 4
| Antenatal care visits (ANC) | Skilled delivery | Facility delivery | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. with complete data | 5,694 (90.5%) | No. with complete data | 5,641 (89.7%) | No. with complete data | 5,667 (90.1%) |
| Attended at least 4 ANC visits | 4,390 (77.1%) | Skilled birth attendant at delivery | 5,397 (95.7%) | Delivered at a health facility | 5,250 (92.6%) |
| AOR of IPV- positive women | 0.849 | AOR of IPV- positive women | 0.638 | AOR of IPV- positive women | 0.846 |
| p-value | 0.044* | p-value | 0.007** | p-value | 0.196 |
Rates of antenatal care visits, skilled delivery, and facility delivery and multivariate regression of the association of prenatal and peripartum health care with IPV.
This table describes the amount of women who had a child under five years of age and who had data regarding their number of ANC visits, whether there was a skilled birth attendant present at delivery, and whether they delivered their baby at a facility. These numbers all pertain to the women's most recent pregnancy. The number of women who met the metrics is listed, along with a simple fraction-derived percentage. Multiple logistic regression of the experience of IPV was performed for this group of women. P-values less than or equal to 0.05 were considered significant.
Bold values indicate statistically significant findings.
denotes p ≤ 0.05.
denotes p ≤ 0.01.
3.5 Skilled delivery
A total of 5,641 women (89.7%) had a child under five years of age and information available about skilled delivery attendance (Table 4). Among these women, 5,397 (95.7%) had a skilled birth attendant. Adjusted for variables in the IPV analyses, having experienced IPV was negatively associated with having a skilled birth attendant (OR 0.638, p = 0.007).
3.6 Facility delivery
A total of 5,667 women (90.1%) had a child under five years of age and information available about facility delivery (Table 4). Among these women, 5,250 (92.6%) delivered at a health facility. Adjusted for variables in the IPV analyses, having experienced IPV trended toward negative association with facility delivery but did not reach statistical significance (OR 0.846, p = 0.196).
4 Discussion
IPV is a significant public health concern in global women's health, with wide-ranging ramifications, including on prenatal and peripartum maternal healthcare. IPV in Kenya has been associated with young marital age, low wealth index, urban residence, depression, minimal educational attainment, drug and alcohol abuse, and higher risk of contracting HIV infection (
Globally, the WHO estimates that 27% of women have had a lifetime experience of IPV (
Age group was found to be a significant factor in predicting the likelihood of past IPV experience, with women between 25 and 49 years being more likely to experience IPV than those aged 18–24 and those older than 50. This is consistent with the Kenyan DHS survey, which revealed that the highest percentage of women experiencing physical or sexual violence in the past 12 months are those between the ages of 25–49 (
Prior and current married/partnered status significantly increased the prevalence of IPV in our study, with women in monogamous or polygamous marriages, as well as those who were widowed, divorced, or separated, having higher odds of IPV experience. The most common perpetrator of physical violence found by the 2022 Kenya DHS was a current husband/intimate partner (54%) followed by a former husband/intimate partner (34%). The most common perpetrator of sexual violence was a current husband/intimate partner (71%) followed by a former husband/intimate partner (19%) (
Emotional abuse is a very common form of IPV—emotional abuse accounts for up to 67.8% of IPV experienced by pregnant women (
One unusual finding of our study is that women who felt safe in their current relationship were more likely to report a past or current history of IPV. Reasons for this finding may be multifactorial. First, the question “Do you feel safe at home?” has been found to only have a sensitivity of 8.8% when asked in a primary care setting, which suggests that there are women who respond “yes” to this question despite experiencing physical violence within their home or who do not view physical violence as a safety threat (
The study also investigated the impact of lifetime experience of IPV on maternal healthcare, both prenatally and peripartum. Our analysis shows women who had experienced IPV were less likely to attend the recommended minimum of four antenatal care (ANC) visits during their most recent pregnancy. This finding is supported by literature investigating prenatal care for IPV-positive women (
Further emphasizing the urgent importance of IPV interventions for improved maternal health outcomes are the health impacts on mother and child. Infants of IPV-positive mothers are at higher risk for pre-term birth, low birth weight, and neonatal death (
4.1 Limitations
The use of self-reported data and the cross-sectional design restrict the ability to establish causal relationships and may be subject to recall and social desirability biases. The study focused on a specific sub-county in Kenya, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other regions and countries. Furthermore, our data only includes findings regarding interpersonal violence perpetrated against women, which excludes the fact that IPV can be carried out by or against any gender. In addition, our data does not subdivide the type or gender of the perpetrator, which limits our ability to investigate trends in who is responsible for causing instances of IPV. To understand the underpinnings of IPV in Migori county, it is important to explore not only female attitudes toward wife-beating (already addressed by our survey), but also male attitudes. To address this limitation, future iterations of the survey will include both male and female respondents. The updated version of the survey is currently being administered by the Lwala Community Alliance. Finally, our data does not address the rates of IPV experienced by women during their pregnancy; we only examined lifetime IPV experience and its effect on pregnancy and maternity care. IPV experienced during a pregnancy could impact maternal and child outcomes and is an area that needs to be further explored. Despite the aforementioned limitations, this hyperlocal data is of relevance to our community-based NGO and findings gleaned from our analysis can contribute to other organizations' efforts of reducing the prevalence of IPV in their communities.
5 Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the prevalence of IPV and its impact on maternal healthcare in Migori County, Kenya. IPV exposure is associated with lower use of maternal care services and may lead to worse maternal health outcomes. This underscores the urgent need for comprehensive interventions that address social and gender norms perpetuating violence against women. The study findings can guide policy interventions and inform community responses to IPV, aiming to create safer and healthier environments for women in Migori County and beyond.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
The studies involving humans were approved by Ethics and Scientific Review Committee at AMREF Health Africa (AMREF-ESRC P452/2018) and the Institutional Review Board at Northeastern University (IRB #: 20-09-18). The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
SS: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal Analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. JS: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Data curation, Conceptualization. SM: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. LG: Writing – review & editing. LM: Writing – review & editing. SO: Writing – review & editing. JW: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Data curation. CS: Writing – review & editing, Conceptualization. AR: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Project administration, Data curation. JM: Writing – review & editing, Resources, Project administration. BV: Writing – review & editing. AO: Writing – review & editing. RW: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration. LW: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Supervision, Project administration, Methodology, Conceptualization.
Funding
The author(s) declare financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
This research was supported by the normal operating budget of the Lwala Community Alliance. No specific research funding was obtained.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1.
MercyJAHillisSDButchartABellisMAWardCLFangXet alInterpersonal violence: global impact and paths to prevention. In: MockCNNugentRKobusingyeOSmithKR, editors. Injury Prevention and Environmental Health. Washington, DC: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank (2017). p. 71–96. Available online at:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525208/ (Accessed May 20, 2022).
2.
World Health Organization. Global plan of action to strengthen the role of the health system within a national multisectoral response to address interpersonal violence, in particular against women and girls, and against children. Published online 2016. Available online at:https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789241511537(accessed May 20, 2022).
3.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. GLOBAL STUDY ON HOMICIDE: Gender-related killing of women and girls. Published online November 2018. Available online at:https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf (Accessed April 29, 2023).
4.
World Health Organization. Violence against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018—WHO African Region. (2018). Available online at:https://www.who.int/publications-detail-redirect/WHO-SRH-21.7(accessed May 20, 2022).
5.
United Nations General Assembly. Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Published online 2015. Available online at:https://www.refworld.org/docid/57b6e3e44.html (Accessed April 29, 2023).
6.
UsherKBhullarNDurkinJGyamfiNJacksonD. Family violence and COVID-19: increased vulnerability and reduced options for support. Int J Ment Health Nurs. (2020) 29:549–52. 10.1111/inm.12735
7.
KrishnakumarAVermaS. Understanding domestic violence in India during COVID-19: a routine activity approach. Asian J Criminol. (2021) 16(1):19–35. 10.1007/s11417-020-09340-1
8.
PiqueroARJenningsWGJemisonEKaukinenCKnaulFM. Domestic Violence During COVID-19: Evidence from a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Council on Criminal Justice. (2021). Available online at:https://counciloncj.org/impact-report-covid-19-and-domestic-violence-trends/(accessed May 20, 2022).
9.
ZhangH. The influence of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on family violence in China. J Fam Violence. (2020) 37:1–11. 10.1007/s10896-020-00196-8
10.
BonomiAEAndersonMLRivaraFPThompsonRS. Health care utilization and costs associated with physical and nonphysical-only intimate partner violence. Health Serv Res. (2009) 44(3):1052–67. 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2009.00955.x
11.
RivaraFPAndersonMLFishmanPBonomiAEReidRJCarrellDet alHealthcare utilization and costs for women with a history of intimate partner violence. Am J Prev Med. (2007) 32:89–96. 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.10.001
12.
DevriesKMMakJYBacchusLJChildJCFalderGPetzoldMet alIntimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLOS Med. (2013) 10:e1001439. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001439
13.
MachtingerELHabererJEWilsonTCWeissDS. Recent trauma is associated with antiretroviral failure and HIV transmission risk behavior among HIV-positive women and female-identified transgenders. AIDS Behav. (2012) 16(8):2160–70. 10.1007/s10461-012-0158-5
14.
StockmanJKHayashiHCampbellJC. Intimate partner violence and its health impact on disproportionately affected populations, including minorities and impoverished groups. J Womens Health. (2015) 24(1):62–79. 10.1089/jwh.2014.4879
15.
CampbellJC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. (2002) 359(9314):1331–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8
16.
ClarkCJ. Chapter 48—intimate partner violence. In: GoldmanMBTroisiRRexrodeKM, editors. Women and Health. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press (2013). p. 725–33. 10.1016/B978-0-12-384978-6.00048-0
17.
AhmedSKoenigMAStephensonR. Effects of domestic violence on perinatal and early-childhood mortality: evidence from North India. Am J Public Health. (2006) 96(8):1423–8. 10.2105/AJPH.2005.066316
18.
CokerALSandersonMDongB. Partner violence during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. (2004) 18(4):260–9. 10.1111/j.1365-3016.2004.00569.x
19.
El KadyDGilbertWMXingGSmithLH. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of assaults during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. (2005) 105(2):357–63. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000151109.46641.03
20.
YostNPBloomSLMcIntireDDLevenoKJ. A prospective observational study of domestic violence during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. (2005) 106(1):61–5. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000164468.06070.2a
21.
MurphyCCScheiBMyhrTLDu MontJ. Abuse: a risk factor for low birth weight? A systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. (2001) 164(11):1567–72.
22.
LipskySHoltVLEasterlingTRCritchlowCW. Police-reported intimate partner violence during pregnancy and the risk of antenatal hospitalization. Matern Child Health J. (2004) 8(2):55–63. 10.1023/b:maci.0000025727.68281.aa
23.
ShahPSShahJ. Knowledge synthesis group on determinants of preterm/LBW births. Maternal exposure to domestic violence and pregnancy and birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analyses. J Womens Health. (2010) 19(11):2017–31. 10.1089/jwh.2010.2051
24.
SilvermanJGDeckerMRReedERajA. Intimate partner violence around the time of pregnancy: association with breastfeeding behavior. J Womens Health. (2006) 15(8):934–40. 10.1089/jwh.2006.15.934
25.
GoodwinMMGazmararianJAJohnsonCHGilbertBCSaltzmanLE. Pregnancy intendedness and physical abuse around the time of pregnancy: findings from the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system, 1996–1997. PRAMS Working Group. Pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system. Matern Child Health J. (2000) 4(2):85–92. 10.1023/a:1009566103493
26.
BerhanieEGebregziabherDBerihuHGerezgiherAKidaneG. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes: a case-control study. Reprod Health. (2019) 16(1):22. 10.1186/s12978-019-0670-4
27.
FolgerATPutnamKTPutnamFWPeughJLEismannEASaTet alMaternal interpersonal trauma and child social-emotional development: an intergenerational effect. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. (2017) 31:99–107. 10.1111/ppe.12341
28.
MorrisMOkothVPrigmoreHLResslerDJMbeyaJRogersAet alThe prevalence of interpersonal violence (IPV) against women and its associated variables: an exploratory study in the rongo sub-county of migori county, Kenya. J Interpers Violence. (2020) 37:2083–101. 10.1177/0886260520935484
29.
StöcklHMarchLPallittoCGarcia-MorenoC. Intimate partner violence among adolescents and young women: prevalence and associated factors in nine countries: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. (2014) 14(1):751. 10.1186/1471-2458-14-751
30.
World Health Organization. Global Health Estimates 2020: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000–2019. (2020). Available online at:https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/themes/mortality-and-global-health-estimates/ghe-leading-causes-of-death(accessed May 21, 2022).
31.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, Kenya Ministry of Health, Nairobi, The DHS Program. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2022. (2023). Available online at:https://dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-PR143-Preliminary-Reports-Key-Indicators-Reports.cfm (Accessed May 2, 2023).
32.
AhmedSAEChangoleJWangamatiCK. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intimate partner violence in Sudan, Malawi and Kenya. Reprod Health. (2021) 18(1):222. 10.1186/s12978-021-01272-y
33.
MemiahPAh MuTPrevotKCookCKMwangiMMMwangiEWet alThe prevalence of intimate partner violence, associated risk factors, and other moderating effects: findings from the Kenya national health demographic survey. J Interpers Violence. (2021) 36:5297–317. 10.1177/0886260518804177
34.
MutisoVMusyimiCRebelloTGitongaITeleAPikeKet alPredictors of intimate partner violence in patients attending general health services at rural health facilities in Makueni county, Kenya. Ment Health Prev. (2020) 20:200191. 10.1016/j.mhp.2020.200191
35.
BurnsPAZuntJRHernandezBWagenaarBHKumarMOmoloDet alIntimate partner violence, poverty, and maternal health care-seeking among young women in Kenya: a cross-sectional analysis informing the new sustainable development goals. Glob Soc Welf. (2020) 7:1–13. 10.1007/s40609-017-0106-4
36.
GooLHarlowSD. Intimate partner violence affects skilled attendance at most recent delivery among women in Kenya. Matern Child Health J. (2012) 16(5):1131–7. 10.1007/s10995-011-0838-1
37.
GottertAAbuyaTHossainSCasseusAWarrenCSripadP. Extent and causes of increased domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: community health worker perspectives from Kenya. Bangladesh, and Haiti. J Glob Health Rep. (2021) 5:e2021063. 10.29392/001c.24944
38.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. Kenya Demographic and Health Survey 2014. (2015). Available online at:https://www.dhsprogram.com/publications/publication-fr308-dhs-final-reports.cfm(accessed May 21, 2022).
39.
National AIDS & STI Control Programme. Kenya Population-Based HIV Impact Assessment 2018. (2022):322. Available online at:https://phia.icap.columbia.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/KENPHIA_Ago25-DIGITAL.pdf (Accessed September 25, 2023).
40.
HalpernCTSpriggsALMartinSLKupperLL. Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. J Adolesc Health Off Publ Soc Adolesc Med. (2009) 45(5):508–16. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011
41.
JenkinsROthienoCOngeriLSifunaPOngechaMKingoraJet alCommon mental disorder in nyanza province, Kenya in 2013 and its associated risk factors –an assessment of change since 2004, using a repeat household survey in a demographic surveillance site. BMC Psychiatry. (2015) 15:309. 10.1186/s12888-015-0693-5
42.
Van’t HofEDawsonKSSchaferAChiumentoAHarper ShehadehMSijbrandijMet alA qualitative evaluation of a brief multicomponent intervention provided by lay health workers for women affected by adversity in urban Kenya. Glob Ment Health Camb Engl. (2018) 5:e6. 10.1017/gmh.2017.26
43.
GatugutaAColombiniMSeeleyJSoremekunSDevriesK. Supporting children and adolescents who have experienced sexual abuse to access services: community health workers’ experiences in Kenya. Child Abuse Negl. (2021) 116(Pt 1):104244. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104244
44.
StarnesJRWamaeJOkothVResslerDJWereVWereLPOet alPopulation-based socio-demographic household assessment of livelihoods and health among communities in Migori County, Kenya over multiple timepoints (2021, 2024, 2027): a study protocol. PLoS One. (2021) 16:e0256555. 10.1371/journal.pone.0256555
45.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics E. 2019 Kenya population and housing census. Published online 2019).
46.
BostoenKChalabiZ. Optimization of household survey sampling without sample frames. Int J Epidemiol. (2006) 35(3):751–5. 10.1093/ije/dyl019
47.
HarrisDRLemeshowS. Evaluation of the EPI survey methodology for estimating relative risk. World Health Stat Q Rapp Trimest Stat Sanit Mond. (1991) 44(3):107–14.
48.
GraisRFRoseAMCGuthmannJP. Don’t spin the pen: two alternative methods for second-stage sampling in urban cluster surveys. Emerg Themes Epidemiol. (2007) 4:8. 10.1186/1742-7622-4-8
49.
SoekenKMcfarlaneJParkerBLominackMC. The Abuse Assessment Screen: A clinical instrument to measure frequency, severity, and perpetrator of abuse against women. Published online 1998. Available online at:https://www.scienceopen.com/document?vid = b2f76211-69b8-40c4-ac28-e01228394214 (Accessed April 29, 2023).
50.
RabinRFJenningsJMCampbellJCBair-MerrittMH. Intimate partner violence screening tools. Am J Prev Med. (2009) 36(5):439–445.e4. 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024
51.
KroenkeKStrineTWSpitzerRLWilliamsJBWBerryJTMokdadAH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord. (2009) 114(1):163–73. 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026
52.
SpitzerRLKroenkeKWilliamsJBW, Patient Health Questionnaire Primary Care Study Group. Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-MDThe PHQ primary care study. JAMA. (1999) 282(18):1737–44. 10.1001/jama.282.18.1737
53.
AbdiHValentinD. Multiple correspondence analysis. In: Salkind N, editor. Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc (2007). p. 651–7.
54.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeRPayneJGonzalezNCondeJG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. (2009) 42(2):377–81. 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
55.
HarrisPATaylorRMinorBLElliottVFernandezMO’NealLet alThe REDCap consortium: building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform. (2019) 95:103208. 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
56.
StillerMBärnighausenTWilsonML. Intimate partner violence among pregnant women in Kenya: forms, perpetrators and associations. BMC Womens Health. (2022) 22(1):210. 10.1186/s12905-022-01761-7
57.
DeckerMRWoodSNThomasHLThiongoMGuiellaGFiacreBet alViolence against women from partners and other household members during COVID-19 in Burkina Faso and Kenya. BMC Public Health. (2022) 22:1857. 10.1186/s12889-022-14197-3
58.
Violence against women and girls: the shadow pandemic. UN Women—Headquarters. Published April 6, 2020. Available online at:https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/4/statement-ed-phumzile-violence-against-women-during-pandemic(accessed July 10, 2023).
59.
PetermanAPottsAO'DonnellMThompsonKShahNOertelt-PrigioneSet alPandemics and Violence Against Women and Children. Center For Global Development | Ideas to Action. Available online at:https://www.cgdev.org/publication/pandemics-and-violence-against-women-and-children(accessed July 11, 2023).
60.
HeiseLL. Violence against women: an integrated, ecological framework. Violence Women. (1998) 4(3):262–90. 10.1177/1077801298004003002
61.
AbramskyTWattsCHGarcia-MorenoCDevriesKKissLEllsbergMet alWhat factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health. (2011) 11:109. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-109
62.
MackayF. The zero tolerance campaign: setting the agenda. Parliam Aff. (1996) 49(1):206–21. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pa.a028669
63.
CismaruMLavackAM. Campaigns targeting perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. (2011) 12(4):183–97. 10.1177/1524838011416376
64.
MuthoniS. “Keeping the Promise” campaign seeks to end gender violence. The Standard. Available online at:https://www.standardmedia.co.ke/counties/article/2000184680/keeping-the-promise-campaign-seeks-to-end-gender-violence(accessed August 10, 2023).
65.
GibbonsLPatersonD. Freedom from fear: campaign against domestic violence: an innovative approach to reducing crime).
66.
CampbellJCManganelloJ. Changing public attitudes as a prevention strategy to reduce intimate partner violence. J Aggress Maltreatment Trauma. (2006) 13(3/4):13–39. 10.1300/J146v13n03_02
67.
FollingstadDRRutledgeLLBergBJHauseESPolekDS. The role of emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. J Fam Violence. (1990) 5(2):107–20. 10.1007/BF00978514
68.
GondolfEWHeckertDAKimmelCM. Nonphysical abuse among batterer program participants. J Fam Violence. (2002) 17(4):293–314. 10.1023/A:1020304715511
69.
KarakurtGSilverKE. Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: the role of gender and age. Violence Vict. (2013) 28(5):804–21. 10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00041
70.
SchumacherJALeonardKE. Husbands’ and Wives’ marital adjustment, verbal aggression, and physical aggression as longitudinal predictors of physical aggression in early marriage. J Consult Clin Psychol. (2005) 73(1):28–37. 10.1037/0022-006X.73.1.28
71.
PeraltaRLFlemingMF. Screening for intimate partner violence in a primary care setting: the validity of “feeling safe at home” and prevalence results. J Am Board Fam Pract. (2003) 16(6):525–32. 10.3122/jabfm.16.6.525
72.
TestaALeeJSemenzaDCJacksonDBGansonKTNagataJM. Intimate partner violence and barriers to prenatal care. Soc Sci Med. (2023) 320:115700. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115700
73.
ShneydermanYKielyM. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or perpetrator? Does it make a difference?BJOG Int J Obstet Gynaecol. (2013) 120(11):1375–85. 10.1111/1471-0528.12357
74.
SigallaGNMushiDMeyrowitschDWManongiRRogathiJJGammeltoftTet alIntimate partner violence during pregnancy and its association with preterm birth and low birth weight in Tanzania: a prospective cohort study. PLoS One. (2017) 12:e0172540. 10.1371/journal.pone.0172540
75.
SarkarNN. The impact of intimate partner violence on women’s reproductive health and pregnancy outcome. J Obstet Gynaecol. (2008) 28(3):266–71. 10.1080/01443610802042415
76.
CampbellJMatoff-SteppSVelezMLCoxHHLaughonK. Pregnancy-associated deaths from homicide, suicide, and drug overdose: review of research and the intersection with intimate partner violence. J Womens Health. (2021) 30(2):236–44. 10.1089/jwh.2020.8875
77.
Gómez AristizábalLYConfortinSCBatistaRFLde Britto e AlvesMTSSSimõesVMFda SilvaAAM. Association between violence and depression during pregnancy with perinatal outcomes: a moderated mediation analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. (2022) 22(1):801. 10.1186/s12884-022-05106-y
78.
LaraMANatera-ReyGBerenzonSJuárez-GarcíaFVillatoro-VelázquezJANietoLet alIntimate partner violence and depressive symptoms in pregnant Mexican women: national survey results. Rev Investig Clin Organo Hosp Enfermedades Nutr. (2014) 66:431–8.
79.
LindahlVPearsonJLColpeL. Prevalence of suicidality during pregnancy and the postpartum. Arch Women’s Ment Health. (2005) 8(2):77–87. 10.1007/s00737-005-0080-1
Appendix
Table A1
| Variable | COR (95% CI) | P-value | AOR (95% CI) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Region | ||||
| North Kamagambo | Ref | Ref | ||
| East Kamagambo | 1.163 (0.950, 1.424) | 0.143 | 1.246 (0.971, 1.598) | 0.084 |
| Central Kamagambo | 1 (0.816, 1.226) | 0.999 | 0.855 (0.654, 1.119) | 0.254 |
| South Kamagambo | 0.977 (0.794, 1.201) | 0.823 | 0.956 (0.739, 1.237) | 0.732 |
| Central Kanyamkago | 0.983 (0.798, 1.211) | 0.871 | 0.928 (0.713, 1.207) | 0.576 |
| West Kanyamkago | 1.309 (1.068, 1.603) | 0.009** | 1.093 (0.848, 1.41) | 0.49 |
| North Sakwa | 1.048 (0.856, 1.284) | 0.649 | 1.051 (0.817, 1.351) | 0.701 |
| Central Sakwa | 0.959 (0.777, 1.183) | 0.697 | 1.000 (0.77, 1.3) | 0.998 |
| Age | ||||
| 18–24 | Ref | Ref | ||
| 25–49 | 1.464 (1.306, 1.642) | <0.001*** | 1.208 (1.045, 1.397) | 0.011* |
| 50+ | 1.456 (1.306, 1.642) | 0.005** | 1.137 (0.766, 1.688) | 0.524 |
| Religion | ||||
| SDA | Ref | Ref | ||
| Catholic | 1.16 (0.996, 1.351) | 0.057 | 1.163 (0.96, 1.408) | 0.124 |
| Protestant | 1.126 (0.979, 1.295) | 0.097 | 1.044 (0.874, 1.247) | 0.633 |
| Roho | 1.302 (1.124, 1.508) | <0.001*** | 1.209 (0.998, 1.465) | 0.053 |
| vOther | 1.115 (1.124, 1.508) | 0.322 | 1.076 (0.821, 1.41) | 0.595 |
| Marital status | ||||
| Single | Ref | Ref | ||
| Married monogamous/cohabitating | 2.695 (1.124, 1.508) | <0.001*** | 2.152 (1.426, 3.248) | <0.001*** |
| Married polygamous | 4.657 (3.227, 6.719) | <0.001*** | 2.924 (1.826, 4.683) | <0.001*** |
| Widowed/divorced/separated | 2.826 (3.227, 6.719) | <0.001*** | 1.745 (1.094, 2.786) | 0.02* |
| Highest level of education | ||||
| No education | Ref | Ref | ||
| Primary | 0.793 (0.521, 1.208) | 0.281 | 1.199 (0.631, 2.28) | 0.579 |
| Secondary+ | 0.576 (0.378, 0.879) | 0.01** | 0.957 (0.497, 1.843) | 0.896 |
| Experience of emotional abuse | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 12.199 (10.662, 13.958) | <0.001*** | 10.462 (9.037, 12.112) | <0.001 |
| IPV exposure in girlhood | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 3.792 (3.390, 4.243) | <0.001*** | 2.525 (2.202, 2.896) | <0.001 |
| Feels safe in current relationship | ||||
| Yes | Ref | Ref | ||
| No | 0.827 (0.726, 0.942) | 0.004** | 0.722 (0.609, 0.855) | <0.001 |
| Ever HIV tested | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 1.469 (0.836, 2.582) | 0.181 | 1.124 (0.557, 2.269) | 0.744 |
| Depression Score | ||||
| None | Ref | Ref | ||
| Mild | 2.057 (1.813, 2.333) | <0.001*** | 1.482 (1.269, 1.73) | <0.001*** |
| Moderate | 1.582 (1.327, 1.885) | <0.001*** | 1.015 (0.812, 1.269) | 0.896 |
| Moderately severe | 1.828 (1.476, 2.264) | <0.001*** | 0.995 (0.759, 1.305) | 0.972 |
| Severe | 4.128 (2.784, 6.121) | <0.001*** | 2.403 (1.429, 4.039) | 0.001*** |
| Childhood mortality (last 5 years) | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 1.062 (0.681, 1.654) | 0.792 | 1.29 (0.76, 2.189) | 0.346 |
| Attitude supportive of wife beating | ||||
| Never okay | Ref | Ref | ||
| Sometimes okay | 2.314 (1.986, 2.696) | <0.001*** | 2.002 (1.651, 2.428) | <0.001*** |
| Currently pregnant | ||||
| No | Ref | Ref | ||
| Yes | 1.057 (0.891, 1.254) | 0.522 | 1.134 (0.918, 1.401) | 0.242 |
| Wealth quartile | ||||
| Non-poor | Ref | Ref | ||
| Vulnerable | 1.435 (1.239, 1.663) | <0.001*** | 0.998 (0.826, 1.206) | 0.982 |
| Poor | 1.34 (1.155, 1.553) | <0.001*** | 0.842 (0.689, 1.028) | 0.091 |
| Severely poor | 1.47 (1.269, 1.704) | <0.001*** | 0.846 (0.682, 1.048) | 0.125 |
multivariate regression of factors associated with IPV, including crude and adjusted odds ratio.
Bold values indicate statistically significant findings.
denotes p ≤ 0.05.
denotes p ≤ 0.01.
denotes p ≤ 0.001.
Appendix I describes the same information as Table 3, but includes the unadjusted odds ratio and its -value for reference.
Summary
Keywords
interpersonal violence, gender-based violence, maternal health, perinatal care, Kenya
Citation
Schellhammer SK, Starnes JR, Mudhune S, Goore L, Marlar L, Oyugi S, Wamae J, Shumba CS, Rogers A, Mbeya J, Vill B, Otieno AS, Wamai RG and Were LPO (2024) Interpersonal violence against women and maternity care in Migori County, Kenya: evidence from a cross-sectional survey. Front. Glob. Womens Health 5:1345153. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2024.1345153
Received
27 November 2023
Accepted
17 April 2024
Published
09 May 2024
Volume
5 - 2024
Edited by
Adi Chereni, London Metropolitan University, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Bernard Mbwele, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Muswamba Mwamba, Stephen F. Austin State University, United States
Updates

Check for updates
Copyright
© 2024 Schellhammer, Starnes, Mudhune, Goore, Marlar, Oyugi, Wamae, Shumba, Rogers, Mbeya, Vill, Otieno, Wamai and Were.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Lawrence P. O. Were werelpo@bu.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.