Justification of physical intimate partner violence among married men in East Africa evidence from the recent demographic and health survey (2015–2022): a multilevel analysis

Introduction: Millions of women and girls worldwide are impacted by physical intimate partner violence. While physical intimate partner violence (IPV) among women is largely associated with the justification of IPV, little is known about men's attitude toward physical IPV. The aim of our study was to examine the factors associated with the justification of physical IPV among men in East Africa.

Method: The study used data from the male file (MR) of the most recent demographic and health survey, which was carried out in 10 East African countries. a weighted sample of 74,494 men who were either married or living with a partner as if married. Multilevel logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between the independent variables and justification of physical IPV.

Result: The pooled prevalence justification of physical intimate partner violence in 10 east African countries was 24.17% (95% CI: 19.45–28.90). The highest prevalence of justification of physical IPV was in Uganda (35.31, 95% CI: 34.09–36.53), and the lowest prevalence of justification of physical IPV was in Malawi (8.88, 95% CI: 8.03–9.73). The multilevel analysis shows that men's age, working status, respondents' educational level, number of wives, and household wealth status, sex of head of household, age of the household head, place of residence, as well as community level poverty, and community level education were factors associated with the justification of physical intimate partner violence.

Conclusion: In East Africa, about 24% of men agreed that physical IPV is justified. Reducing the justification of physical IPV requires advancing men's educational standing, men's economic status, and increased media awareness, with a focus on rural men and promoting educational and awareness campaigns at community level is needed.

Introduction

The United Nations defines violence against women as any act of gender-specific violence that will result in sexual, physical, or mental harm for women, including intimidation, arbitrary denial of freedom, and threats of such acts, whether the deed is done in public or privately (Fried, 2003). Physical intimate partner violence is a traumatic life incident that can harm the health and wellbeing of a women (Plichta, 2004). In 2018, the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an analysis of prevalence data from 2000 to 2018 in 161 countries and areas on behalf of the UN Interagency Working Group on Violence Against Women. The findings indicated that ~30% of women globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence, either from an intimate partner, non-partner sexual violence, or both (World Health Organization, 2021). Social beliefs that encourage violence are the driving force behind these acts of violence, and these attitudes are connected to gender roles. Some men think that using violence helps to control their relationships and validate their masculinity (Seloilwe and Thupayagale-Tshweneagae, 2015). A study conducted in southern part Africa found that 25% of men justify wife-beating (Tsawe and Mhele, 2022), also, the notion that “wife-beating” is appropriate was least prevalent among both women and men in Central and Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Caribbean, and most prevalent in Africa and South Asia (Tran et al., 2016). Men who are in favor of spousal abuse are also more prone to employ violence against their partners, children, or any other family members (Lansford et al., 2020). However, not much research has been done in eastern Africa to determine the prevalence and what factors are most important in affecting men's attitudes toward physical IPV.

More than 25% of women between the ages of 15 and 49 years who are in relationships report having experienced physical or sexual abuse at least once in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2024). In low and middle-income countries, the prevalence of intimate partner violence was 37.2%, in central sub-Saharan Africa (44%), and in eastern sub-Saharan Africa (38%) (Ma et al., 2023; Sardinha et al., 2022). Among reproductive-age women in East African the prevalence of intimate partner violence was 43.72% (Tessema et al., 2023). Intimate partners are responsible between 38 and 50% of all murders of women; IPV also affects families, communities, and societies on a social and economic level (World Health Organization, 2024; UNODC, 2018). Globally speaking, women's conditions were generally the poorest in sub-Saharan Africa, highest incidence was seen in central and eastern Africa (The East African, 2022).

Despite this several initiatives and agendas have been implemented like, Goal 5 of the Sustainable Development Agenda clearly states that gender equality is a global priority (United Nations, 2015). Gender-related health initiatives, microfinance, women's empowerment have been implemented as interventions (Huis et al., 2017; Mandal et al., 2017). Also, using the multi-strategy, Relationship skills strengthened, Empowerment of women, Services ensured, Poverty reduced and Transformed attitudes and beliefs (R.E.S.P.E.C.T.) framework can significantly reduce the likelihood that women will experience intimate partner violence (Ward and Harlow, 2021). Different laws and regulations have been passed to stop violence against women, The Maputo Protocol of the East African Community (EAC) establishes strict guidelines for governmental accountability with relation to gender-based violence against women (GVAW) requiring the prevention, prosecution, and eradication of all forms of GVAW (EAC, 2021). Each country's passing their own laws; for example, Kenya (Act No. 2 of 2015) and Rwanda (No. 59/2008 of 10/09/2008) are currently standing out as the nation's having GVAW legislative and policy frameworks that are more extensive (UNHCR Rwanda, 2008; Domestic Violence Act of Kenya, 2015). Zimbabwe passed the Domestic Violence Act in 2007, while Zambia enacted the Anti-Gender-Based Violence Act No.1 in 2011 (Makahamadze et al., 2012; Advocats Sans Frontieres, 2017). But several of these laws and regulations had flaws in whether some forms of violence should be subject to legal sanctions or not (Tsawe and Mhele, 2022).

Intimate partner violence affects women's physical and mental health in many ways, and it can also have a negative impact on the child of those who have experienced it, as research indicates it goes as far as the death of the child at a young age (Kebede et al., 2022; Memiah et al., 2020). Thus, a history of violence might be a risk factor for a variety of illnesses and mental disorders. As research indicates there is a strong correlation between men's acceptance of wife-beating as a legitimate method of resolving marital conflicts and the actual occurrence of such behavior (Chirwa et al., 2018; Yoshikawa et al., 2014).

Previous studies indicated that those who accept the justification of IPV are mainly uneducated, unemployed, younger men, separated men, men from rural area, men with no exposure to media, men from the poorest wealth index group and those who believe IPV is a social norm in their communities (Darteh et al., 2021; Bukuluki et al., 2021; Schuler et al., 2012; Trott et al., 2017; Lawoko, 2008). Some studies in Africa tried to address the justification or attitude of intimate partner violence among women (Bukuluki et al., 2021; Trott et al., 2017; Doku and Asante, 2015; Husnu and Mertan, 2017; Atomssa et al., 2021). However, studies conducted to understand the justification or attitude of men toward IPV are rare (Oyediran, 2016; Pierotti, 2013). A study in sub-Saharan African countries using DHS data from 2010 to 2015 tried to show justification for IPV in men (Darteh et al., 2021).

Understanding the viewpoints, attitudes, or justifications of men on acts of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is crucial for those working to prevent women from being subjected to this type of abuse and to create interventions that are culturally relevant. This study intends to expand upon earlier works and demonstrate how a variety of individual and community level factors associate with the justification of physical IPV among men in East Africa using the most recent DHS data (2015–2022).

Method

Source of data and study population

The African continent has been divided into five regions by the UN Statistics Division with 22 nations (British Indian Ocean Territory, Burundi, Comoros, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, French Southern Territories, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Mayotte, Reunion, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Somaliland, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe) being part of the largest region East Africa (United Nations Statistics Division, 2024). From these 22 countries, nine of them (British Indian Ocean Territory, Djibouti, French Southern Territories, Somalia, Somaliland, Seychelles, Mauritius, Reunion, and Mayotte) do not have available DHS data. And from the remaining 13 countries that have available DHS data, three countries [Eritrea (2002), Comoros (2012), and Mozambique (2011)] were excluded due to having DHS data older than 2015 (Figure 1). So, in this study we included 10 countries having DHS data conducted in and after 2015 (Table 1).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Country selection procedure.

Table 1

Table 1. Country, survey year, and weighted sample size for the 10 East African countries.

Data from the male file (MR) of the most recent DHSs, which were carried out in 10 East-African countries, was used in this study. Demographic health surveys are national surveys that are gathered mostly from developing nations in Asia and Africa. Permission to utilize DHS data was obtained by providing a brief explanation of the study on the DHS official website https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm

DHS interviews with men between the ages of 15 and 59 years. Choosing clusters or Enumeration areas (EAs) is the first step and then systematic sampling of the households enumerated in each cluster or EAs was done in the second stage. Interviews were conducted with all men aged 15 to 59 who were de facto. A weighted sample of 74,494 men who were either married or living with a partner were included in the study.

Dependent variable

For our study, we consider justification of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) as an outcome variable, which was recoded as binary with 0 denoting no and 1 denoting yes and was generated from questions asked to men to understand their view about if some conditions could be justifiable to perform IPV. This was obtained from the participants' responses to the following items. “In your opinion, is a husband justified in hitting or beating his wife in the following situations?” (1) Wife goes out without telling him, (2) wife neglects the children, (3) wife argues with husband, (4) wife refuses to have sex with husband, and (5) wife burns food. The responses to questions for each of these responses were coded as “yes” and “no.” In our study, men who answered “yes” to at least one of the conditions in which a husband hits or beats the wife were considered to justify physical IPV, while those who answered “no” to all five conditions were considered not to justify physical IPV and by this the outcome variable was defined (Darteh et al., 2021; Adu et al., 2022; Aboagye et al., 2021).

Independent variable

The individual-level independent variables included in this study are: age of respondent (15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55+), Respondents' educational status (no education, primary, secondary, and above), Respondents working status (working, not working), Media exposure (exposure measured by frequency of listening to radio or reading a newspaper or magazine) Respondents who answered “yes” to at least one of the three questions were considered to be exposed to media, while those who answered “no” to all were considered not exposed to media. Wealth status (poor, middle, rich), Religion (orthodox, catholic, protestant, Muslim, other.), Number of wives (one, more than one), Number of living children (none, one, more than one), sex of head of household (male or female), Age of household head in years (15–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55+).

Community level independent variables included in our study are Place of residence (urban, rural), Community level education (low, high) constructed from respondents' educational status, Community level poverty (low, high), constructed from wealth index, Community level media exposure (low, high) constructed from individual level media exposure and Country Income (LMIC, LIC) classified based on World bank list of economies 2023–2024 (World Bank, 2023). Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe were classified as Lower middle-income countries and Burundi, Ethiopia, Madagascar, Malawi, Rwanda, and Uganda were classified as Lower income countries.

Data analysis

Using STATA version 17, descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were carried out, and country-specific percentages are used to present descriptive data. To demonstrate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, multilevel logistic regression was used, and variables with a p-value < 0.25 in the bi-variable analysis were candidates for the multivariable analysis. A p-value of 0.25 was chosen to reduce the risk of excluding variables that may become significant in the presence of other variables. In the multivariable analysis, an adjusted odds ratio with a 95% CI and a p-value < 0.05 was used to identify factors associated with the justification of IPV. We conducted a multilevel logistic regression analysis with both random and fixed effects. We created multilevel mixed-effects supplementary logistic regression models that could take into account the DHS's stratified multistage sampling method and assess the influence of hierarchical ordering (Primary sampling units and regions) on the variance of related factors (Amegbor and Pascoe, 2021). We assessed whether observations within the same country (or any hierarchical structure) are independent after accounting for the hierarchical structure by using intra-class correlation (ICC), media odds ratio (MOR), and likelihood ratio. We have also checked if the log odds of physical IPV are linearly related to the independent variables using the Box-Tidwell test (p-value > 5%). A variance inflation factor (VIF) has been used to test for multicollinearity among variables, and there was none (the VIF ranged from 1.2 to 5.49, with a mean of 2.66).

Model building

A multilevel model was fitted due to the DHS data set hierarchical and clustering nature, since the prevalence of justification of IPV varies between clusters. In order to assess the presence of cluster variability, ICC was used, and also MOR and proportional change in variance (PCV) were computed to measure the variation of justification of IPV between clusters. Four models were fitted; the null model was without the independent variables, and the ICC in this model showed there is cluster variability (ICC = 16.9). Model 1 was fitted with the outcome variable and individual-level independent variables. Model 2 was fitted by the outcome variable and community-level factors. The last model, which is model 3, was fitted by the outcome variable and both individual and community-level factors. The model with the lowest Akaike information criterion (model 3) was selected as a best fitted model. ICC was calculated for each model by $ICC=\frac{VA}{VA+3.29}*100\%$ (Liyew and Teshale, 2020; Merlo et al., 2005; Asmamaw et al., 2023). PCV were calculated for each model, PCV= $(\frac{Vnull-Vm1,m2,m3}{Vnull})*100\%$. Where Vnull = the variance in the Null model, Vm1 = variance in Model one, Vm2 = variance in Model two, Vm3 = variance in Model three. MOR was calculated for each model = exp(0.95√VA).

Result

Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Largest percentages of men (35%) were aged 25–34, with 16% of men from Kenya and 47% having completed primary school. Most men were currently employed (95%), had media exposure (83%), lived in male-headed households (95%), were monogamously married (94%), resided in rural areas (74%), and 56% were from lower-income countries. Additionally, 43% of men belonged to the rich wealth group (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Background characteristics of participants.

Pooled prevalence of justification of IPV in East African countries

The pooled prevalence of justification of physical IPV among married men in East Africa was 24.17% (95% CI: 19.45–28.90). The highest prevalence was from Uganda 35.31% (95% CI: 34.09–36.53) and the lowest from Malawi 8.88% (95% CI: 8.03–9.73; Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Forest plot of overall prevalence of justification of IPV among married men in East Africa countries from 2015 to 2022.

Multilevel logistics regression

Table 3 shows the result of the multilevel analysis used to assess the determinants of justification of Physical IPV among men who are either married or living with a partner as if married in East Africa.

Table 3

Table 3. Multilevel logistic regression analysis.

The odds of justifying physical IPV among husbands and partners with higher ages had 33% (AOR: 0.67 CI: 0.60–0.74), 46% (AOR: 0.54 CI: 0.48–0.58), 57% (AOR: 0.43 CI: 0.38–0.49), and 62% (AOR: 0.38 CI: 0.34–0.45) reduced chance of justifying IPV for the 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, and 55–64 age groups, respectively, compared to the younger age group (15–24). The odds of justifying physical IPV are also reduced by 20% (AOR: 0.80 CI: 0.76–0.84) and 23% (AOR: 0.77 CI: 0.73–0.80) for husbands and partners having primary education, secondary education, and a higher level of education, respectively, as compared to those with no education. Similarly, the household wealth index is also one of the significant determining factors of justifying physical IPV, and the odds of justifying physical IPV are reduced by 78% (AOR: 0.22 CI: 0.84–0.90) and 23% (AOR: 0.77 CI: 0.73–0.80) for men in the middle and rich wealth groups, respectively, when compared to men in the poor wealth group. Working status is also one factor associated with justifying physical IPV. The likelihood of justifying physical IPV is 1.19 (AOR: 1.19, CI: 1.10–1.29) times higher among husbands and partners who are working than those with no jobs. Likewise, the number of wives was also an associated factor for justifying physical IPV; the odds of justifying physical IPV violence are 1.29 (AOR: 1.29 CI: 1.21–1.39) times higher for men having more than one wife or partner compared to men having only one wife. When it comes to sex of the head of the household, men living in male-headed households had a 10% (AOR: 0.90 CI: 0.85–0.98) reduced chance of justifying physical IPV than those living in female-headed households. Results also show that men residing in households with older household heads are more likely to justify physical IPV. The odds of justifying physical IPV are 1.22 (AOR: 1.22 CI: 1.10–1.36), 1.16 (AOR: 1.16 CI: 1.03–1.30), 1.21 (AOR: 1.21 CI: 1.07–1.36), and 1.22 (AOR: 1.22 CI: 1.08–1.37) times higher for men living in households whose household heads were in the 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, and 55+ age groups, respectively, when compared to men living in younger household heads (15–24 years).

In addition to the above individual-level factors, the place of residence, community-level wealth, community-level education, and country-level income status are the community-level factors that determined the justification of physical IPV.

The odds of justifying physical IPV among rural respondents is 1.15 (AOR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.09–1.21) times higher compared to respondents from urban areas, and the odds of justifying IPV is also 1.11 (AOR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.05–1.22) times higher for husbands and partners who live in a higher poverty community when compared to those living in low poverty communities. The odds of justifying physical IPV is reduced by 21% (AOR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.66–0.72), for respondents living in uneducated communities than those living in highly uneducated communities.

Random effect

The ICC in the empty model shows that 16.9% of the variance in justifying physical intimate partner violence is a result of cluster differences. Moreover, the MOR value in the empty model showed that 2.17 times the odds of difference in justifying physical intimate partner violence are attributed to differences between clusters. The ICC showed a decrease as we moved from the empty model (ICC = 16.9) to the final model 3 (ICC = 14.3). The PCV in the final model explained that 14.9% of the variation in justifying physical intimate partner violence is a result of individual and community-related factors. Furthermore, the median odds ratio (MOR) in the final model was 2.03, if the respondent moved from a cluster with a low prevalence of justified IPV to a cluster with a high prevalence of justifying physical IPV, the median increase in the odds of justified IPV would increase by 2.03 times. Model three had a small Deviance (89,796.6) and AIC (89,846.7) and was chosen as the best-fitted model (Table 3).

Discussion

The present study investigated the pooled prevalence and assessed individual and community- level factors associated with the justification of physical IPV among men in east Africa, a region where IPV is widespread and public justification is common (Tessema et al., 2023; Kebede et al., 2022; Darteh et al., 2021; Asmamaw et al., 2023). The pooled prevalence of justification of IPV among married men in East Africa in our study was 24.17% (95% CI: 19.45–28.90). This finding is lower than the study conducted on sub-Saharan countries between 2003 and 2007 and from a study conducted in India, which shows 33% of men justifying IPV (Darteh et al., 2021), also lower than a study conducted in India with 42% of men justified IPV (Pradhan and De, 2024). The prevalence of justifying physical IPV in East Africa is higher than the study conducted in Ghana (Ola, 2022) and Ethiopia (Abeya, 2015), 12.4 and 7% respectively. The possible explanation for this difference might be that since the prevalence in our study was pooled of 10 east African countries, and these other studies were conducted on a single country. The other reason for the observed difference in the prevalence could be different year of the study period. Furthermore, cultural norms and traditions on the issue of IPV such as bride prices, dowries, or planned weddings, patriarchal beliefs, and gender-inequitable attitudes, might be different from population to population (Sikweyiya et al., 2020; Shakya et al., 2022). Studies show that attitudes toward IPV, gender inequity, and traditional gender roles vary between cultures. Despite the patriarchal nature of many African countries (Uthman et al., 2009), there are significant cultural differences in how much male superiority and female inferiority are regarded and ingrained in everyday life (Zark and Satyen, 2022).

Our finding showed that older men are less likely to justify IPV than younger men. Our result is similar to previously conducted studies (Darteh et al., 2021; Trott et al., 2017; Okenwa-Emegwa et al., 2016; Waltermaurer, 2012). To explain, the first way to look at it is from the perspective of social learning theory, which contends that young people accept physical abuse of women as a form of discipline for misbehavior (Akers and Jennings, 2015). For example, children who grow up in families where intimate partner violence (IPV) is common may learn from their dads how to justify IPV and eventually become inclined to rationalize any episode of IPV (Singh et al., 2012; Jones, 2021). This tendency is undoubtedly going to produce a more positive attitude toward IPV, but it will also likely result in a decrease when they learn more about the impacts of IPV and obtain more trustworthy information from their environment (Abeya, 2015). Other factors, such as drug abuse and peer-pressure might also explain this finding, this could be explained by, in order to be accepted by their peers' young males may encounter pressure to live up to hyper-masculine norms, which might involve controlling others with violence, suppressing emotions, and dominating partners. Moreover, a person's self-control, impulsivity, and inhibitions can all be negatively impacted by substance use which will increase likelihood of aggressive conduct then leading to justifying IPV (Mulawa et al., 2018; McKool et al., 2021).

In terms of educational status, men with primary, secondary and above educational status, are less likely to justify IPV than men with no educational status and this result is in line with previously conducted studies (Darteh et al., 2021; Lawoko, 2008; Abeya, 2015; Taylor et al., 2017; Ola, 2022; Serrano-Montilla et al., 2020). A possible justification for this might be that men who are uneducated may have the perception of viewing their wife or partner as their own property (Burazeri et al., 2005; Sayem et al., 2012). Being uneducated, they may cling to harmful cultural ideas and have fewer opportunities to learn about rights to safety and international norms regarding gender equity, which gives them the right to control and abuse (Antai, 2011). Moreover, the findings from this study emphasizes the importance of men's education in reducing the justification of IPV. In addition to providing opportunities for self-discovery, reflection on human rights, personal development, and constructive contributions to society, higher education may also contribute to the rise of contemporary values, equality, self-respect, respect for others, and a decrease in violent tendencies (Ekawu, 2024). Despite this, a study in Nigeria showed the attitude toward IPV was higher for men having primary, secondary and above educational status, reporting a result different from our study (Okenwa-Emegwa et al., 2016).

Our study's findings are consistent with earlier studies, that men who are employed are more likely than those who are not to justify intimate partner violence (Darteh et al., 2021; Gennari et al., 2017). In some parts of the Africa, there may be cultural expectations about men's responsibilities as family providers and wage earner (Shakya et al., 2022). Working men may experience pressure to uphold these traditional gender norms, which may include controlling their partners and defending IPV as a tactic for dominance. Another possible explanation might be that men who are working may believe they are in a better financial position in a relationship and feel more independent, which could cause them to respond angrily and defend beating their wives (Gennari et al., 2017). So, in an attempt to maintain dominance or authority, controlling behaviors like IPV may be justified due to this perceived imbalance in power (Scott-Storey et al., 2022). However, since ~95% of respondents were employed, indicating a large work status imbalance in the sample. This lack of variation could affect how our finding about working status and attitudes against IPV are interpreted.

In the case of wealth status, men from the poor wealth index had a high chance of justifying IPV compared to men from middle and rich wealth index; similar findings were reported in previous studies as well (Darteh et al., 2021; Abeya, 2015; Clare et al., 2021). The possible explanation for this may be that financial instability and poverty can increase relationship stressors and raise the possibility of violence, according to studies, financial difficulties may increase relationship stress since they can cause frustration, despair, and a breakdown in communication. In these circumstances, IPV may be viewed as a means of reclaiming control as well as a response to conflict (Mulia, 2008; Jewkes, 2002).

In addition, those from low-income families, might also be more inclined to agree that physical IPV is justified because of their personal exposure, that is experiencing violence either directly or indirectly, such as seeing intimate partner violence (IPV) in the home, growing up in communities that encourages such violence, or even being victims of IPV themselves due to this their opinions may be influenced and leading them to justify IPV (Mitchell et al., 2013; Chowdhury and Mathur, 2021; Copp et al., 2019). On the contrary, other previous studies indicated that men from the poor wealth households had a better view of IPV than men from middle and rich wealth households (Tran et al., 2016; Taylor et al., 2017; Adu, 2023).

Men who are polygamous are more likely to justify intimate partner violence compared to those with only one wife and this result has also been noted in earlier research (Oyediran, 2016; Ola, 2022). Possible explanation for this might be, since polygyny is a patriarchal system where men are customarily granted more sexual rights than women, this practice may lead to justifying the physical form of IPV (Bowan, 2013). Since in most African countries, it is cultural and traditional right for men to marry more than one because of this unequal sexual privilege, polygamous men may believe they are entitled to greater rights than women, which may lead them to justify beating their wives (Amo-Adjei and Tuoyire, 2016).

Our study indicated that “sex of the household head” and “age of the household head” are factors significantly associated with the justification of physical IPV, even though these variables had not been mentioned as factors in previously conducted researches (Darteh et al., 2021; Oyediran, 2016; Pierotti, 2013). A study in Bangladesh shows that there is a relationship between intimate partner violence and the sex of the household head (Afiaz et al., 2020). The finding from our study showed that men that are living in households where males are head of household are less likely than those men who are living in a household where females are head of the household to justify IPV. This finding demonstrates that any household can experience IPV, regardless of who is considered the “head.” One possible explanation is that these families may strongly believe that violence is unacceptable in their home, prioritizing personal values and beliefs that emphasize respect and healthy relationships over violence (Barth and Jiranek, 2023). These values and beliefs might have been instilled through education, upbringing, religious instruction, or in some cases firsthand experiences (Abeya, 2015; Waltermaurer, 2012). Moreover, some homes may have a male head who exemplifies respectful behavior toward spouses and non-violent conflict resolution. So individuals living in these kind of households may reject violence as appropriate behavior in relationships (Asghar et al., 2017). Furthermore, it's also important to recognize that not all households with a male head are the same. Male domination may still encourage patriarchal views in some situations, and other elements like education, social mores, or exposure to violence may be more important than home headship alone. However, since 95% of respondents were from households headed by men, indicating a significant bias in the sample. Therefore, the interpretation of our results regarding household power dynamics and the justification of IPV may be impacted by this low proportion of female-headed households.

The other finding is that men living with older household head have a higher chance of justifying physical intimate partner violence. A possible way to explain this may be traditions held by older household heads may have an impact on men's attitudes regarding intimate partner violence in those households since older heads of households, for instance, might be more inclined to support male-controlled viewpoints that defend or tolerate IPV as a form of correction or discipline. Men living in these households are likely to justify IPV. This finding is supported by previously conducted studies (Sayem et al., 2012; Saud et al., 2021).

Compared to men who live in urban areas, those who live in rural areas are more likely to justify physical IPV, Previous studies support this result as well (Darteh et al., 2021; Pradhan and De, 2024; Ola, 2022; Abeya, 2015). This can be explained by the wide spread of gender equality and other norms within urban households, given that men living in urban areas are more exposed to modern cultures which help to reduce IPV, by promoting values and norms that emphasize gender equality, individual rights, and non-violent conflict resolution (Jewkes, 2013). Moreover, compared to men in rural regions, urban men with greater levels of education are less likely to defend IPV, since education frequently promotes a heightened consciousness of human rights, gender equality, and the legal ramifications of intimate partner violence (IPV), which may result in a rejection of excuses for such behavior (Dalal, 2011; Ackerson et al., 2008; Boyle et al., 2009). Furthermore, men from communities that are highly impoverished and have low levels of education are more likely to defend IPV. This can be attributed to the persistence of harmful traditions, practices, and norms in these communities, such as the domination of wives, which are often passed down through generations (Bhushan and Singh, 2014; Benebo et al., 2018).

Strengths and limitations of the study

The primary strength of the study was the use of nationally representative data (DHS) from the most recent 10 East African countries which could possess sufficient statistical power to identify the relationship between certain factors and the justification of physical IPV. Secondly the use of advanced statistical method a multilevel analysis to take into the data's hierarchical structure was another area of strength. Although this study has an important contribution to the study of justification for physical IPV, some limitations also exist, like the fact that DHS data set did not fully include some of the key variables that could have been linked to the justification of IPV, such as childhood exposure to IPV and experience of child abuse. Also, due to the cross-sectional nature of the data, we are unable to determine the temporal relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Since the DHS survey relied on respondents' self-reports, there may have been issues with recall bias during data collection procedure.

Conclusion

This study found that the justification of physical intimate partner violence among men who are married or living with a partner in East Africa was related to both individual and community level factors. Even though its pooled prevalence is lower, there is a big difference between countries. Factors such as educational status, working status, age, number of wives, sex of head of household, age of the household head, residence, community level education, and community level poverty were the factors significantly associated with the justification of physical IPV. Policy makers and programs should advance men's educational standing, men's economic status, and increased media awareness. Governmental institutions and agencies, and non-government organizations should advocate against the justification of physical IPV against women through education and awareness campaigns and empowerment programs at the community level.

Data availability statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. The datasets used for the study are publicly available from the DHS official website https://dhsprogram.com/data/available-datasets.cfm.

Ethics statement

Since the study used already-existing public data sets that are freely accessible online at www.measuredhs.com with all identifiers removed ethical approval was not necessary. However, we had authorization from Measure DHS to access and use the data by submitting an online request.

Author contributions

KD: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. DG: Formal analysis, Methodology, Resources, Software, Writing – review & editing. GT: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. MJ: Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Writing – review & editing. MT: Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review & editing. TT: Data curation, Formal analysis, Software, Validation, Writing – review & editing. AH: Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. LB: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the measure DHS for allowing us to obtain, utilize, and examine the DHS data set.

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.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

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.

Abbreviations

IPV, intimate partner violence; DHS, demographic and health survey; WHO, World Health Organization; UN, United Nations; AOR, adjusted odds ration; ICC, intra cluster correlation; PCV, proportional change in variance; MOR, median odds ratio; LLR, Log likelihood ratio; CI, confidence interval.

References

Abeya, S. G. (2015). Factors associated with attitudes of men towards gender and intimate partner violence against women in eastern Ethiopia: a multinomial logistic regression analysis. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J. 4, 89–98. doi: 10.4314/star.v4i4.13

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Aboagye, R. G., Seidu, A. A., Asare, B. Y., Peprah, P., Addo, I. Y., and Ahinkorah, B. O. (2021). Exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate partner violence among women in sexual unions in sub-Saharan Africa. Arch. Public Health 79, 1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00684-3

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ackerson, L. K., Kawachi, I., Barbeau, E. M., and Subramanian, S. V. (2008). Effects of individual and proximate educational context on intimate partner violence: a population-based study of women in India. Am. J. Public Health 98, 507–514. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2007.113738

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adu, C. (2023). Socio-economic inequalities in intimate partner violence justification among women in Ghana: analysis of the 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data. Int. Health 15, 182–188. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihac032

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adu, C., Asare, B. Y., Agyemang-Duah, W., Adomako, E. B., Agyekum, A. K., and Peprah, P. (2022). Impact of socio-demographic and economic factors on intimate partner violence justification among women in union in Papua New Guinea. Arch. Public Health 80:136. doi: 10.1186/s13690-022-00889-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Advocats Sans Frontieres (2017). Challenges of Implementation of the Anti-gender-based Violence act 2011 in Zambia. Lusaka: Advocats Sans Frontieres.

Google Scholar

Afiaz, A., Biswas, R. K., Shamma, R., and Ananna, N. (2020). Intimate partner violence (IPV) with miscarriages, stillbirths and abortions: identifying vulnerable households for women in Bangladesh. PLoS ONE 15:e0236670. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0236670

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Akers, R. L., and Jennings, W. G. (2015). “Social learning theory,” in The Handbook of Criminological Theory, ed. A. R. Piquero (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley), 230–240. doi: 10.1002/9781118512449.ch12

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amegbor, P. M., and Pascoe, L. (2021). Variations in emotional, sexual, and physical intimate partner violence among women in Uganda: a multilevel analysis. J. Interpers. Violence 36, NP7868–NP7898. doi: 10.1177/0886260519839429

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Amo-Adjei, J., and Tuoyire, D. A. (2016). Do ethnicity and polygyny contribute to justification of men beating women in Ghana? Women Health 56, 48–64. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2015.1074638

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Antai, D. (2011). Controlling behavior, power relations within intimate relationships and intimate partner physical and sexual violence against women in Nigeria. BMC Public Health 11:511. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-511

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Asghar, K., Rubenstein, B., and Stark, L. (2017). Preventing Household Violence: Promising Strategies for Humanitarian Settings. CPC Learning Network; The Alliance for Child Protection in Humanitarian Action; UNICEF; USAID, 1–96.

Google Scholar

Asmamaw, D. B., Negash, W. D., Bitew, D. A., and Belachew, T. B. (2023). Multilevel analysis of intimate partner violence and associated factors among pregnant women in East Africa: evidence from recent (2012–2018) demographic and health surveys. Arch. Public Health 81:67. doi: 10.1186/s13690-023-01065-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Atomssa, E. M., Medhanyie, A. A., and Fisseha, G. (2021). Individual and community-level risk factors of women's acceptance of intimate partner violence in Ethiopia: multilevel analysis of 2011 Ethiopian Demographic Health Survey. BMC Womens Health 21, 1–14. doi: 10.1186/s12905-021-01427-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barth, R. P., and Jiranek, H. C. (2023). Strengthening relationships between couples to respond to domestic violence: a commentary on policy changes needed to support this evolution. J. Fam. Violence 38, 761–774. doi: 10.1007/s10896-022-00413-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Benebo, F. O., Schumann, B., and Vaezghasemi, M. (2018). Intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria: a multilevel study investigating the effect of women's status and community norms. BMC Womens Health 18, 1–17. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0628-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bhushan, K., and Singh, P. (2014). The effect of media on domestic violence norms: evidence from India. Econ. Peace Secur. J. 9. doi: 10.15355/epsj.9.1.58

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bowan, L. (2013). Polygamy and patriarchy: an intimate look at marriage in Ghana through a human rights lens. Contemp. J. Afr. Stud. 1, 45–64. doi: 10.10520/EJC147094

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boyle, M. H., Georgiades, K., Cullen, J., and Racine, Y. (2009). Community influences on intimate partner violence in India: Women's education, attitudes towards mistreatment and standards of living. Soc. Sci. Med. 69, 691–697. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.06.039

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bukuluki, P., Kisaakye, P., Wandiembe, S. P., Musuya, T., Letiyo, E., and Bazira, D. (2021). An examination of physical violence against women and its justification in development settings in Uganda. PLoS ONE 16:e0255281. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0255281

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Burazeri, G., Roshi, E., Jewkes, R., Jordan, S., Bjegovic, V., and Laaser, U. (2005). Factors associated with spousal physical violence in Albania: cross sectional study. BMJ 331, 197–201. doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7510.197

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chirwa, E. D., Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A. A., Ogum Alangea, D., Coker-Appiah, D., Adanu, R. M. K., et al. (2018). Prevalence and risk factors of physical or sexual intimate violence perpetration amongst men in four districts in the central region of Ghana: Baseline findings from a cluster randomised controlled trial. PLoS ONE 13:e0191663. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191663

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chowdhury, S. R., and Mathur, K. (2021). Why do women support wife-beating more than men in India? Evidence from the National Family Health Survey (2015–2016). Fam. J. 2021L10664807211022000. doi: 10.1177/10664807211022000

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Clare, C. A., Velasquez, G., Martorell, G. M. M., Fernandez, D., Dinh, J., and Montague, A. (2021). Risk factors for male perpetration of intimate partner violence: a review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 56:101532. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2020.101532

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Longmore, M. A., and Manning, W. D. (2019). The development of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: an examination of key correlates among a sample of young adults. J. Interpers. Violence 34, 1357–1387. doi: 10.1177/0886260516651311

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dalal, K. (2011). Does economic empowerment protect women from intimate partner violence? J Injury Violence Res. 3:35. doi: 10.5249/jivr.v3i1.76

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Darteh, E. K. M., Dickson, K. S., Rominski, S. D., and Moyer, C. A. (2021). Justification of physical intimate partner violence among men in sub-Saharan Africa: a multinational analysis of demographic and health survey data. J. Public Health 29, 1433–1441. doi: 10.1007/s10389-020-01260-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Doku, D. T., and Asante, K. O. (2015). Women's approval of domestic physical violence against wives: analysis of the Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Womens Health 15, 1–8. doi: 10.1186/s12905-015-0276-0

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Domestic Violence Act of Kenya (2015). Domestic Violence Act of Kenya, violence against Women Prevention Law. Available online at: https://learningpartnership.org/resource/domestic-violence-act-kenya-document-english (Accessed August 18, 2024).

Google Scholar

EAC (2021). Gender-based Violence Against Women (GVAW). Available online at: https://www.kit.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/EAC-Womens-and-Girls-Rights-Factsheet.pdf (Accessed August 18, 2024).

Google Scholar

Ekawu, I. (2024). Association between men's level of education and their justification of wife-beating in Ghana. A cross-sectional study (Dissertation). Available online at: https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-535174

Google Scholar

Fried, S. T. (2003). Violence against women. Health Hum. Rights 6, 88–111. doi: 10.2307/4065431

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gennari, M., Giuliani, C., and Accordini, M. (2017). Muslim immigrant men's and women's attitudes towards intimate partner violence. Eur. J. Psychol. 13:688. doi: 10.5964/ejop.v13i4.1411

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Huis, M. A., Hansen, N., Otten, S., and Lensink, R. (2017). A three-dimensional model of women's empowerment: implications in the field of microfinance and future directions. Front. Psychol. 8:1678. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01678

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Husnu, S., and Mertan, B. E. (2017). The roles of traditional gender myths and beliefs about beating on self-reported partner violence. J. Interpers. Violence 32, 3735–3752. doi: 10.1177/0886260515600879

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jewkes, R. (2002). Intimate partner violence: causes and prevention. Lancet 359, 1423–1429. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08357-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jewkes, R. (2013). Intimate partner violence: the end of routine screening. Lancet 382, 190–191. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60584-X

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jones, A. D. (2021). Child sexual abuse as lifespan trauma within the context of intimate partner violence: experiences of Caribbean women. Front. Sociol. 6:623661. doi: 10.3389/fsoc.2021.623661

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kebede, S. A., Weldesenbet, A. B., and Tusa, B. S. (2022). Magnitude and determinants of intimate partner violence against women in East Africa: multilevel analysis of recent demographic and health survey. BMC Womens Health 22:74. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01656-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lansford, J. E., Zietz, S., Putnick, D. L., Deater-Deckard, K., Bradley, R. H., Costa, M., et al. (2020). Men's and women's views on acceptability of husband-to-wife violence and use of corporal punishment with children in 21 low-and middle-income countries. Child Abuse Neglect 108:104692. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104692

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Lawoko, S. (2008). Predictors of attitudes toward intimate partner violence: a comparative study of men in Zambia and Kenya. J. Interpers. Violence. 23, 1056–1074. doi: 10.1177/0886260507313972

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Liyew, A. M., and Teshale, A. B. (2020). Individual and community level factors associated with anemia among lactating mothers in Ethiopia using data from Ethiopian demographic and health survey, 2016; a multilevel analysis. BMC Public Health 20:775. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08934-9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ma, N., Chen, S., Kong, Y., Chen, Z., Geldsetzer, P., Zeng, H., et al. (2023). Prevalence and changes of intimate partner violence against women aged 15 to 49 years in 53 low-income and middle-income countries from 2000 to 2021: a secondary analysis of population-based surveys. Lancet Glob Health 11, e1863–e1873. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00417-5

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Makahamadze, T., Isacco, A., and Chireshe, E. (2012). Examining the perceptions of Zimbabwean women about the Domestic Violence Act. J. Interpers. Violence. 27, 706–727. doi: 10.1177/0886260511423239

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mandal, M., Muralidharan, A., and Pappa, S. (2017). A review of measures of women's empowerment and related gender constructs in family planning and maternal health program evaluations in low-and middle-income countries. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 17, 1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12884-017-1500-8

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

McKool, M., Stephenson, R., Winskell, K., Teten Tharp, A., and Parrott, D. (2021). Peer influence on IPV by young adult males: investigating the case for a social norms approach. J. Interpers. Violence 36, 83–102. doi: 10.1177/0886260517725735

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Memiah, P., Bond, T., Opanga, Y., Kingori, C., Cook, C., Mwangi, M., et al. (2020). Neonatal, infant, and child mortality among women exposed to intimate partner violence in East Africa: a multi-country analysis. BMC Womens Health 20, 1–16. doi: 10.1186/s12905-019-0867-2

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Merlo, J., Chaix, B., Yang, M., Lynch, J., and Råstam, L. (2005). A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: linking the statistical concept of clustering to the idea of contextual phenomenon. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59, 443–449. doi: 10.1136/jech.2004.023473

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mitchell, V., Parekh, K. P., Russ, S., Forget, N. P., and Wright, S. W. (2013). Personal experiences and attitudes towards intimate partner violence in healthcare providers in Guyana. Int. Health 5, 273–279. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/iht030

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mulawa, M. I., Kajula, L. J., and Maman, S. (2018). Peer network influence on intimate partner violence perpetration among urban Tanzanian men. Cult Health Sex 20, 474–488. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1357193

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mulia, N. (2008). Stress, social support and problem drinking among women in poverty. Addiction 103, 1283–1293. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02234.x

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Okenwa-Emegwa, L., Lawoko, S., and Jansson, B. (2016). Attitudes toward physical intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria. Sage Open 6:2158244016667993. doi: 10.1177/2158244016667993

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ola, B. E. (2022). What factors are associated with recent changes in men's attitudes towards intimate partner violence across regional, rural, and urban spaces of Ghana? Findings from three waves of Ghana National Surveys From 2003 to 2014. J. Interpers. Violence 37, NP8190–NP8225. doi: 10.1177/0886260520974070

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oyediran, K. A. (2016). Explaining trends and patterns in attitudes towards wife-beating among women in Nigeria: analysis of 2003, 2008, and 2013 Demographic and Health Survey data. Genus 72:11. doi: 10.1186/s41118-016-0016-9

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pierotti, R. S. (2013). Increasing rejection of intimate partner violence: evidence of global cultural diffusion. Am. Sociol. Rev. 78, 240–265. doi: 10.1177/0003122413480363

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Plichta, S. B. (2004). Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences: policy and practice implications. J. Interpers. Violence 19, 1296–1323. doi: 10.1177/0886260504269685

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pradhan, M. R., and De, P. (2024). Men's attitude towards wife-beating: understanding the pattern and trend in India. BMC Public Health 24:331. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-17782-w

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S. R., and García-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual, or both, intimate partner violence against women in 2018. Lancet 399, 803–813. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saud, M., Ashfaq, A., and Mas' udah, S. (2021). Women's attitudes towards wife beating and its connection with lntimate partner violence (LPV): an empirical analysis of a national demographic and health survey conducted in Pakistan. J. Int. Womens Stud. 22, 149–160.

Google Scholar

Sayem, A. M., Begum, H. A., and Moneesha, S. S. (2012). Attitudes towards justifying intimate partner violence among married women in Bangladesh. J. Biosoc. Sci. 44, 641–660. doi: 10.1017/S0021932012000223

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Schuler, S. R., Yount, K. M., and Lenzi, R. (2012). Justification of wife beating in rural Bangladesh: a qualitative analysis of gender differences in responses to survey questions. Violence Against Women 18, 1177–1191. doi: 10.1177/1077801212465152

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Scott-Storey, K., O'Donnell, S., Ford-Gilboe, M., Varcoe, C., Wathen, N., Malcolm, J., et al. (2022). What about the men? A critical review of men's experiences of intimate partner violence. Trauma Violence Abuse 24, 858–872. doi: 10.1177/15248380211043827

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Seloilwe, E., and Thupayagale-Tshweneagae, G. (2015). The intersection of HIV and AIDS risk behaviours and gender-based violence among youths in Botswana. Afr. J. Phys. Health Educ. Recreat. Dance 21(Suppl. 1), 41–49. doi: 10.10520/EJC175313

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Serrano-Montilla, C., Lozano, L. M., Bender, M., and Padilla, J. L. (2020). Individual and societal risk factors of attitudes justifying intimate partner violence against women: a multilevel cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 10:e037993. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037993

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shakya, H. B., Cislaghi, B., Fleming, P., Levtov, R. G., Boyce, S. C., Raj, A., et al. (2022). Associations of attitudes and social norms with experiences of intimate partner violence among married adolescents and their husbands in rural Niger: a dyadic cross-sectional study. BMC Womens Health 22:180. doi: 10.1186/s12905-022-01724-y

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A. A., Alangea, D. O., Dako-Gyeke, P., Chirwa, E. D., Coker-Appiah, D., et al. (2020). Patriarchy and gender-inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in the central region of Ghana. BMC Public Health 20:682. doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-08825-z

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Singh, A. K., Verma, R., Heilman, B. P., Contreras, M., Barker, G., and Bloomfield, J. (2012). Bridges to Adulthood: Understanding the Lifelong Influence of men's Childhood Experiences of Violence Analyzing data from the International Men and Gender Equality Survey. Washington, DC: International Center for Research on Women (ICRW) and Instituto Promundo.

Google Scholar

Taylor, S., Xia, Y., and Do, K. A. (2017). Attitude towards intimate partner violence in two Asian cultures. Int. J. Asian Soc. Sci. 7, 182–191. doi: 10.18488/journal.1/2017.7.2/1.2.182.191

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tessema, Z. T., Gebrie, W. M., Tesema, G. A., Alemneh, T. S., Teshale, A. B., Yeshaw, Y., et al. (2023). Intimate partner violence and its associated factors among reproductive-age women in East Africa: a generalized mixed effect robust poisson regression model. PLoS ONE 18:e0288917. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288917

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

The East African (2022). East and Central Africa Lead in Partner Violence. Available online at: https://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/tea/news/east-africa/east-and-central-africa-lead-in-partner-violence-3782672 (Accessed July 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Tran, T. D., Nguyen, H., and Fisher, J. (2016). Attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women among women and men in 39 low-and middle-income countries. PLoS ONE 11:e0167438. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167438

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Trott, C. D., Harman, J. J., and Kaufman, M. R. (2017). Women's attitudes toward intimate partner violence in Ethiopia: the role of social norms in the interview context. Violence Against Women 23, 1016–1036. doi: 10.1177/1077801216654018

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tsawe, M., and Mhele, K. (2022). Determinants of wife-beating justification amongst men in southern African countries: evidence from demographic and health surveys. Afr. J. Reprod. Health 26, 85–93. doi: 10.29063/ajrh2022/v26i9.9

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

UNHCR Rwanda (2008). Law on Prevention and Punishment of Gender-Based Violence. Available online at: https://www.refworld.org/legal/legislation/natlegbod/2008/en/67903 (Accessed August 18, 2024)..

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

United Nations (2015). SDG5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower All Women and Girls. Available online at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg5 (Accessed July 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

United Nations Statistics Division (2024). Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use (M49). Available online at: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/ (Accessed March 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

UNODC (2018). Global Study on Homicide 2018. Vienna. Available online at: https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/GSH2018/GSH18_Gender-related_killing_of_women_and_girls.pdf (Accessed July 12, 2024).

Google Scholar

Uthman, O. A., Lawoko, S., and Moradi, T. (2009). Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: a comparative analysis of 17 sub-Saharan countries. BMC Int. Health Hum. Rights 9, 1–15. doi: 10.1186/1472-698X-9-14

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Waltermaurer, E. (2012). Public justification of intimate partner violence: a review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abuse 13, 167–175. doi: 10.1177/1524838012447699

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ward, C. L., and Harlow, S. (2021). RESPecT and intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional study using DHS data in Kenya. BMJ Open 11:e046069. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046069

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

World Bank (2023). World Bank Group country Classifications by Income. July 1, 2023–June 30, 2024. Available online at: https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/opendata/new-world-bank-group-country-classifications-income-level-fy24 (Accessed March 20, 2024).

Google Scholar

World Health Organization (2021). Violence Against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018: Global, Regional and National Prevalence Estimates for Intimate Partner Violence Against Women and Global and Regional Prevalence Estimates for Non-partner Sexual Violence Against Women. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Google Scholar

World Health Organization (2024). Violence Against Women. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women (Accessed March 26, 2024).

Google Scholar

Yoshikawa, K., Shakya, T. M., Poudel, K. C., and Jimba, M. (2014). Acceptance of wife beating and its association with physical violence towards women in Nepal: a cross-sectional study using couple's data. PLoS ONE 9:e95829. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0095829

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zark, L., and Satyen, L. (2022). Cross-cultural differences in student attitudes toward intimate partner violence: a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse 23, 1007–1022. doi: 10.1177/1524838020985565

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar