Journal of Urban Health

, Volume 83, Issue 2, pp 182–194 | Cite as

Neighborhood Influences and Intimate Partner Violence: Does Geographic Setting Matter?

  • Jessica Griffin BurkeEmail author
  • Patricia O'Campo
  • Geri L. Peak


Intimate partner violence is one health-related outcome that has received growing attention from those interested in the role of neighborhood context. A limitation of existing contextual health research is its' failure to look beyond urban settings. Because suburban and rural areas have received so little attention, it is not clear whether data generated from urban samples can be generalized to non-urban geographic settings. We began to explore this issue using concept mapping, a participatory, mixed method approach. Data from 37 urban and 24 suburban women are used to explore and compare perceptions of neighborhood characteristics related to intimate partner violence. While several similarities exist between the perceptions of participants residing in urban and suburban areas, some differences were uncovered. These results provide valuable information regarding the perceived relationship between neighborhood context and intimate partner violence and suggest future avenues for research interested in examining the role of geographic setting.


Geographic setting Intimate partner violence Neighborhood 


  1. 1.
    Kramer A, Lorenzon D, Mueller G. Prevalence of intimate partner violence and health implications for women using emergency departments and primary care clinics.Women Health Issues. 2004;14(1):19–29.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell J. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1331–1336.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Campbell J, Jones AS, Dienemann J, et al. Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Arch Intern Med. 2002 May 27;162(10):1157–1163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Plichta SB, Falik M. Prevalence of violence and its implications for women's health. Women Health Issues. 2001 May–Jun;11(3):244–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Campo P, Gielen AC, Faden RR, Xue X, Kass N, Wang MC. Violence by male partners against women during the childbearing year: a contextual analysis. Am J Public Health. 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt 1):1092–1097.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunradi CB, Caetano R, Clark C, Schafer J. Neighborhood poverty as a predictor of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States: a multilevel analysis. Ann Epidemiol. 2000 Jul;10(5):297–308.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Browning CR. The span of collective efficacy: extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. J Marriage Family. 2002;64(4):883–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O'Campo P. Invited commentary: advancing theory and methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and health. Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jan 1;157(1):9–13.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rajaratman J, Burke JG, O'Campo P. (Accepted, Pending Revision). Maternal & child health and neighborhood residence: a review of the selection and construction of area-level variables.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    O'Campo P, Burke J, Peak GL, McDonnell KA, Gielen AC. Uncovering neighbourhood influences on intimate partner violence using concept mapping. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Jul;59(7):603–608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eberhardt MS, Pamuk ER. The importance of place of residence: examining health in rural and nonrural areas. Am J Public Health. 2004 Oct;94(10):1682–1686.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Block C. Does neighborhood collective efficacy make a difference behind closed doors? Presented at the American Sociological Association conference, August 2002.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miles-Doan R. Violence between spouses and intimates: does neighborhood context matter? Soc Forces. 1998;77(2):623–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pearlman DN, Zierler S, Gjelsvik A, Verhoek-Oftedahl W. Neighborhood environment, racial position, and risk of police-reported domestic violence: a contextual analysis. Public Health Rep. 2003 Jan–Feb;118(1):44–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Burke JG, O'Campo P, Peak G, Gielen A, McDonnell K, Trochim W. An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research methodology. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1392–1410.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Trochim W. Concept mapping: soft science or hard art? Eval Program Planning. 1989;12:87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira; 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Academy of Medicine 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jessica Griffin Burke
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patricia O'Campo
  • Geri L. Peak
  1. 1.Department of Behavioral and Community Health SciencesUniversity of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public HealthPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations