Intimate Partner Violence, Animal Maltreatment, and Concern for Animal Safekeeping: A Survey of Survivors Who Owned Pets and Livestock

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122110342
Author(s):  
Crystal J. Giesbrecht

An online survey was completed by victims/survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV), living in both urban and rural areas, who owned pets and/or livestock. The majority of the sample had not received services from domestic violence shelters and services. Quantitative and qualitative data regarding barriers to accessing support and escaping IPV are presented for both pet and livestock owners. Using validated measures of IPV and animal abuse, differences in experiences of IPV are described for victims who had experienced their partners mistreat their animals and those who had not. Recommendations are offered for training, legislation, and pet-friendly domestic violence shelters and rental housing.

2021 ◽  
pp. 088626052110568
Author(s):  
Crystal J. Giesbrecht

While research on the link between intimate partner violence (IPV), animal maltreatment, and the need for animal safekeeping has increased significantly in recent years, previous research has included samples of victims/survivors and service providers. The present study examined public awareness of the link between IPV, animal abuse, and the need for animal safekeeping. The study also examined awareness of services and supports and inquired about respondents’ experiences with animal safekeeping in situations of IPV through an online survey that was open to the public. The survey included quantitative and qualitative questions and asked about three types of animals: pets, livestock, and service animals. Respondents were 176 residents of Saskatchewan who live in urban, rural, and northern areas of the province. Findings indicate that many respondents knew people who experienced IPV where their animals were also abused. Several respondents had assisted someone in planning for temporary animal safekeeping as part of their plan to exit a relationship when they were experiencing IPV. These results demonstrate the importance of “natural supports,” including family, friends, and neighbors, for providing information, support, and assistance with animal safekeeping in situations of IPV, especially in rural and northern communities that do not have domestic violence and animal welfare agencies nearby. Findings also indicate public support for increasing services and supports for people who experience IPV and own animals, including pet-friendly domestic violence shelters and rental housing, to allow people and animals escaping IPV to remain together.


Partner Abuse ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-21
Author(s):  
Katherine M. Kenyon ◽  
Diane Hiebert-Murphy ◽  
Janice Ristock ◽  
Maria I. Medved

Domestic violence shelters can provide services that are key to ending intimate partner violence. Yet, little is known about the process through which a stay in shelter increases women's ability to move toward the lives they want. The construct of empowerment has been used to gauge the effectiveness of intimate partner violence interventions and has been linked to a variety of positive outcomes. The present qualitative study analyzed nine in-depth interviews with women in domestic violence shelters to explore processes that occurred within the shelter stay that enhanced their sense of empowerment. A narrative methodology that situates personal stories within the broader social context was used. Four interrelated empowerment storylines were identified and involved self-reflection, gaining clarity, acquiring knowledge, and building community. Implications of these processes for shelter services are discussed.


CJEM ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (S1) ◽  
pp. S66 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Vonkeman ◽  
P.R. Atkinson ◽  
J. Fraser ◽  
R. McCloskey

Introduction: Domestic violence (DV) rates in smaller cities been reported to be some of the highest in Canada. It is highly likely that emergency department staff will come across victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in their daily practice. The purpose of this study is to better understand current practices for detecting IPV as we are currently uncertain whether patients are assessed for IPV and what the current documentation practices are. Methods: A standardized retrospective chart review, following principles outlined by Gilbert et al. 1996, was completed by two researchers to capture domestic violence documentation rates in patients presenting to the ED between January and April 2015 with injuries that may have been caused by IPV. To assess self-reported documentation/questioning practices, a cross-sectional online survey was distributed to ED staff via staff email lists three times between July and October 2016, with a response rate of 45.9% (n=55). The primary outcome was DV field usage. Secondary outcomes included documentation in patient charts and current questioning habits. Results: Overall, we found documentation in 4.64% of all included patient charts (n=366). No documentation was noted in the DV field. 52.4% patients with deliberate injuries had no documentation of assailant identity. With regards to self reported documentation practices, 16.4% of ED staff never questioned female patients about intimate partner violence, 83.6% asked when thought appropriate, and none asked routinely. None of the staff used a structured screening tool. 60% of ED staff documented their questioning but 92.7% did not use the DV-field for documentation. 58.2% of ED staff could not identify the DV field and 45.5% of respondents did not know how to interpret the DV field if positive. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the current documentation tool (DV-field) is not being utilized. Furthermore, low rates of IPV documentation, and potentially questioning, in high risk patients indicates that there is need to improve current practises.


Author(s):  
Emily Wright ◽  
Brandon Valgardson

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious problem that affects many individuals and crosses national borders, religions, gender, sexual orientation, racial, and ethnic groups (Harvey, Garcia-Moreno, & Butchart, 2007; Krug, Mercy, Dahlberg, & Zwi, 2002). The World Health Organization has defined intimate partner violence as any behavior that inflicts harm on an intimate partner, such as a spouse, prior spouse, or partner. This harm can be physical, psychological, or sexual in nature and is inflicted through physical aggression, psychological abuse, sexual coercion, or other controlling behaviors (Krug et al., 2002). At times, the terms domestic violence and partner/spouse abuse are used interchangeably with the term intimate partner violence (Harvey et al., 2007). Historically, intimate partner violence was seen as a matter to be dealt with in the home (Andrews & Khavinson, 2013); that is, it was largely considered a private issue between intimate partners. As such, little attention or support was extended toward victims of violence. The women’s rights movement during the 1970s brought many of the deleterious effects of IPV to the attention of the public. As a result, assistance became increasingly available for victims (Dugan, Nagin, & Rosenfeld, 2003). Some of the efforts to provide assistance to victims of IPV include mandatory arrest laws, victim advocacy, counseling services, shelters, and crisis hotlines. Substantial efforts have been made to provide needed services to the victims of IPV, yet the exact rates of victimization are unknown. This is due to different research methodologies and operationalizations of IPV that are used across studies. For instance, there is some controversy as to whether IPV should be measured by acts of violence (e.g., hitting, choking) or the severity of injuries (e.g., bruises, broken bones). Complicating the issue is the fact that different sampling methods may yield different estimates of IPV. Research drawn from the general population, for instance, may uncover higher rates of less severe IPV, while purposive samples drawn from domestic violence shelters may yield higher rates of severe IPV (Johnson, 2008). Measurement challenges also occur because many individuals underreport or misrepresent their victimization. Thus, research that incorporates multiple study designs and sampling techniques, indicates that approximately 16% of adults in the United States experience IPV victimization each year (Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Misra, Selwyn, & Rohling, 2012). Social scientists have used a number of theories to better understand IPV. These theories include feminist theories, power theories, social learning theories, and personality theories. Research grounded in these theories has found many risk factors that are related to the likelihood of victimization and perpetration. Additionally, various risk factors for IPV perpetration and victimization have been identified, including individual (e.g., alcohol abuse, anger), historical (e.g., abuse as a child), and demographic (e.g., cohabitation, age) factors (Stith et al., 2000; Stith, Smith, Penn, Ward, & Tritt, 2004). Recently, behavioral scientists have begun to investigate the biological and genetic factors related to IPV perpetration (Barnes, TenEyck, Boutwell, & Beaver, 2013; Hines & Saudino, 2004). Because there are many short- and long-term negative effects of IPV victimization, scholars and advocates continue to explore new avenues to increase understanding of IPV perpetration and victimization to better assist victims and perpetrators. Currently, the main sources of help for victims of IPV include mandatory arrest laws, domestic violence shelters, crisis hotlines, civil protection orders, victim advocacy, treatment programs, and informal means of assistance. However, each of these resources has demonstrated varying degrees of effectiveness for increasing victim support and reducing repeated victimization.


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Forsdike ◽  
Manjula O’Connor ◽  
David Castle ◽  
Kelsey Hegarty

Objective: Examine knowledge, opinions and practices of psychiatrists and trainees in responding to domestic violence (DV). Method: Online survey including two sub-scales from PREMIS (Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey): knowledge (10 items) and preparedness (10 items). Results: Of psychiatrists completing the survey (216), 47% had received less than 2 hours of training in DV. PREMIS findings showed moderate knowledge of, and preparedness to deal with, DV. Participants with more clinical experience had significantly more knowledge and preparedness to deal with DV. Conclusions: Findings suggest more training in DV for psychiatrists is needed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122098593
Author(s):  
Brittany Patafio ◽  
Peter Miller ◽  
Arlene Walker ◽  
Kerri Coomber ◽  
Ashlee Curtis ◽  
...  

This study explores two approaches to measuring coercive controlling behaviors (CCBs)—counting how many different CCB types and examining the frequency of each CCB experienced—to examine their utility in explaining the relationship between CCBs and physical intimate partner violence (IPV). Australian women aged 18–68 years ( n = 739; Mage = 31.58, SDage = 11.76) completed an online survey. Count and frequency CCB approaches yielded similar significant associations with increased physical IPV. Both approaches suggest that frightening behaviors in particular are significantly indicative of also experiencing physical IPV; however, when you count CCB types, public name-calling becomes important, whereas when you examine the frequency of each CCB type, jealousy/possessiveness becomes important. These findings suggest differential utility between measures of CCBs, which examine the frequency of specific CCB types and which count CCB types, and that both approaches are useful in understanding how coercion and control relate to physical violence within intimate relationships.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Caicedo Roa ◽  
L Gabrielle Dalaqua ◽  
P Filizola ◽  
R Cordeiro

Abstract Introduction Violence against women is a public health problem with severe consequences. Most women in situations of domestic violence are emotionally involved and/or economically dependent of their intimate partners contributing to the perpetuation and acceptance of violence. Objectives 1) To characterize the women who join the Reference and Support Center for Women (Ceamo) in Campinas, Southeast Brazil. 2) To measure the quality of life in women victims of intimate partner violence 3) To determine the risk of feminicide. Methods The Ceamo is a public specialized service from the mayor of Campinas, it provides psychological, social and legal guidance to women in situations of gender violence. Inclusion criteria: Women attending Ceamo services, speaking Portuguese, age ≥18 years old and having experienced intimate partner violence. Measure instruments: Danger assessment Scale and WHOQOL-BREF. Results During the 11 months of the study, 78 new users were recruited. Average age 38.3 years old, mostly married/stable union, most of them with children (88%). 64% of women do not work and 36% live with the abusive partner. Prevalent types of violence suffered during by the victims in the last year were psychological n = 76, physical n = 62, moral n = 54 and sexual n = 23. The domain most affected in the assessment of quality of life was the environment (average 42% /100%) and psychological domain (42%/100%). 49% of women were classified with increased risk, 22% with severe risk and 1% with extreme risk of femicide. The questions with the most positive answers were those related to believing that the partner can kill her (77%), jealous of the partner (76%) and controlling behavior (73%), being followed/spied by the partner (67%) and threat death (65%). Conclusions The service in general receive very vulnerable women with low perception of their own quality of life, precarious material conditions and high risk of femicide. Key messages The women in domestic violence situation attended by the Ceamo service are at high risk of femicide. Service users have very low perception of their quality of life and poor social conditions.


2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 410-418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meagan J. Brem ◽  
Autumn Rae Florimbio ◽  
Hannah Grigorian ◽  
Caitlin Wolford-Clevenger ◽  
JoAnna Elmquist ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document