Skip to main content

Domestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies

Journal of Family Violence volume 25, pages 369–382 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

To systematically review the worldwide evidence on the prevalence of domestic violence against women, to evaluate the quality of studies, and to account for variation in prevalence between studies, using consistent definitions and explicit, rigorous methods. Systematic review of prevalence studies on domestic violence against women. Literature searches of 6 databases were undertaken for the period 1995 to 2006. Medline, Embase, Cinahl, ASSIA, ISI, and International Bibliography of the Social Sciences were searched, supplemented by hand searching of the reference lists from studies retrieved and specialized interdisciplinary journals on violence. A total of 134 studies in English on the prevalence of domestic violence against women, including women aged 18 to 65 years, but excluding women with specific disabilities or diseases, containing primary, empirical research data, were included in the systematic review. Studies were scored on eight pre-determined criteria and stratified according to the total quality score. The majority of the sudies were conducted in North America (41%), followed by Europe (20%). 56% of studies were population-based, and 17% were carried out either in primary or community health care settings. There was considerable heterogeneity both between and within geographical locations, health care settings, and study quality The prevalence of lifetime domestic violence varies from 1.9% in Washington, US, to 70% in Hispanic Latinas in Southeast US. Only 12% scored a maximum of 8 on our quality criteria, with 27% studies scored 7, and 17% scored 6. The mean lifetime prevalence of all types of violence was found to be highest in studies conducted in psychiatric and obstetric/gynecology clinics. Results of this review emphasize that violence against women has reached epidemic proportions in many societies. Accurate measurement of the prevalence of domestic violence remains problematic and further culturally sensitive research is required to develop more effective preventive policies and programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  • Anderson, K. L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: an integration of feminist and family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50(3), 655–669.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caetano, R., Cunradi, C., Clark, C., & Schafer, J. (2000). Intimate partner violence and drinking patterns among white, black, and hispanic couples in the U.S. Journal of Substance Abuse, 11(2), 123–138.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C. (1995). Adult response to violence. In J. C. Campbell (Ed.), Violence: A plague in our land (pp. 19–29). Washington, DC: American Academy of Nursing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. C. (2002). Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lance, 359, 1331–1336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D., Masaki, B., & Torres, S. (1997). Water on the rock: Changing domestic violence perception in the African American, Asian American, and Latino communities. In E. Klein, J. Campbell, E. Soler & M. Ghez (Eds.), Ending domestic violence: Changing public perceptions/halting the epidemic (pp. 65–70). Calif Sage: Thousands Oaks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickers, K. (2002). Systematic reviews in epidemiology: why are we so far behind? International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 6–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douki, S., Nacef, F., Belhadje, A., Bouasker, A., & Ghachem, R. (2003). Violence against women in Arab and Islamic countries. Archives of Women Ment Health, 6, 165–171.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2005). Researching violence against women: A practical guide for researchers and Aactivists. Washington DC: World Health Organization, PATH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellsberg, M., Jansen, H., Heike, L., Watts, C., & Garcia-Moreno, C. (2008). Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet, 371, 1165–1172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fagan, J., & Browne, A. (1994). Violence between spouses and intimates: Physical aggresion between men and women in intimate relationships. In A. Reiss & J. Roth (Eds.), Understanding and preventing violence: Social influences, Vol. 3 (pp. 115–292). Washington, DC: National Academy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M., Heike, L., & Watts, C. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. Lancet, 368, 1260–1269.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gelles, R. (1997). Intimate violence in families (pp. 146–149). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golding, J. M., Taylor, D. L., Menard, L., & King, M. J. (2000). Prevalence of sexual abuse history in a sample of women seeking treatment for premenstrual syndrome. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetatric and Gynecology, 21, 69–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hagemann-White, C. (2001). European research on the prevalence of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 7, 732–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, S. L., Poindeter, V. C., & Caray-little, B. (1996). Four measures of partner violence: construct similarity and classification differences. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 127–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris, R. J., Firestone, J. M., & Vega, W. A. (2005). The interaction of country of origin, acculturation, and gender role ideology on wife abuse. Social Science Quarterly, 86(2), 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heise, L., Ellsberg, M., & Gottemoeller, M. (1999). Ending violence against women. Baltimore: John’s Hopkins University School of Public Health; Population Information Program. Report No.11, Series L.

    Google Scholar 

  • Joachim, J. (2000). Shaping the human rights agenda: the case of violence against women. In M. K. Meyer & E. Prugl (Eds.), Gender politics in global governance (pp. 142–160). Lanham: Rowman and Little Field.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khawaja, M., & Barazi, R. (2005). Prevalence of wife beating in Jordanian refugee camps: reports by men and women. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 59, 840–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koss, M. P. (1993). Detecting the scope of rape: a review of prevalence research methods. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 8(2), 198–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krauss, H. (2006). Perspectives on violence. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 108, 4–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loney, P., Chambers, L., Bennett, K., Roberts, J., & Stratford, P. (2000). Critical appraisal of the health research literature: prevalence or incidence of a health problem. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 19(4), 170–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: redefining the issues of separation. Michigan Law Review, 90, 165–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarlane, J., Christoffel, K., Bateman, L., Miller, V., & Bullock, L. (1991). Assessing for abuse: self-report versus nurse interview. Public Health Nurse, 8, 245–250.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Merry, S. (2003). Constructing a global law-violence against women and the human rights system. Law and Social Inquiry: A new global legality. American Bar Foundation, 941–977.

  • Michalski, J. (2004). Making sociological sense out of trends in intimate partner violence. Violence against Women, 10(6), 652–675.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plichta, S. (1992). The effects of woman abuse on health care utilization and health status: a literature review. Women’s Health Issues, 2(3), 154–163.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rydstrom, H. (2003). Encounting “hot” anger: domestic violence in contemporary Vietnam. Violence Against Women, 9, 676–697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadowski, L., Hunter, W., Bangdiwala, S., & Munoz, S. (2004). The world studies of abuse in the family enviroment (WorldSAFE): a model of a multi-national study of family violence. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 11(2), 81–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sokoloff, N., & Pratt, C. (2005). Domestic violence at the margines: readings on race, class, gender, and culture. Rutgers University Press, 42–47.

  • Walling, M. K., Reiter, R. C., O’Hara, M. W., Milburn, A. K., Lilly, G., & Vincent, S. D. (1994). Abuse history and chronic pain in women. I. Prevalences of sexual abuse and physical abuse. Obstetric and Gynecology, 84, 193–199.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Waltermaurer, E. (2005). Measuring intimate partner violence (IPV); you may only get what you ask for. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(4), 501–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wisner, C. L., Glimmer, T. P., Saltzman, L. E., & Zink, T. M. (1999). Intimate partner violence against women: do victims cost health plans more? Journal of Family Practice, 48, 439–443.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1993). Investing in health: World development indicators: World Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Health Organization. (1997). Violence against women: A priority health issue. http://www.who.int/gender/violence/prioreng/en/index.html (accessed April, 8 2008).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the advice given by Dr. Kalwant Sidhu, Director of the MSc Programme at King’s College London, Martin Hewitt, who provided advice on literature searching, Dr. Paul Seed, who provided statistical advice, Prof. Gene Feder and Prof. Tony Ades for commenting on the paper before submission for publication and to Jeremy Nagle in the British Library, who helped to track down references.

Contributorship

Samia Alhabib had the original idea for the study which was refined by Roger Jones. Data collection, critical appraisal of studies and general data analysis were undertaken by Samia Alhabib. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken by Ula Nur. Samia Alhabib and Roger Jones drafted and finalized the manuscript.

Potential Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Ethics Approval

Not required.

Funding

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Academic Unit of Primary Health Care, University of Bristol, 25 Belgrave Road, Bristol, BS8 2AA, UK

    Samia Alhabib

  2. Cancer Statistics-Cancer Research UK, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

    Ula Nur

  3. Department of General Practice & Primary Care, King’s College London, London, UK

    Roger Jones

Authors
  1. Samia Alhabib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ula Nur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Roger Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samia Alhabib.

Appendix

Appendix

Summary Table of the include studies:

Study ID Population % &Violence type sampling Sample size Response Case definition instrument CI ↓Bias Score
Hakim et al. 2001, population study Indonesia (Java) P (LT: 11%, C: 2%), S (LT: 22%, C: 13%), E (LT: 34%, C: 16%) ? 765 94% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 7
Hynes et al. 2004, population study East Timor Current, P; 24.8% (19.9–29.8), E; 30.5% (22.2–38.8), S; 15.7% (8.6–22.8) Random 288 74% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 7
Haj-Yahia et al. 2000, population study Palestine Annual incidence; E; 52%,P; 52%, S; 37.6%, EC; 45% Random 2,800, 1,500 86.7%, 88.9% Yes CTS & ISA, Self-administered No No 6
Nikki et al. 2000, community clinic Latin Current overall prevalence; 19% Non-random 1,001 ? Yes ?AAS, interview No No 4
Naved et al. 2006, population study Bangladesh LT prevalence P; 39.7% (Urban), 41.7% (Rural), current P; 19% (Urban), 15.8% (Rural), Random 2,702 96% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 7
Mousavi et al. 2005, population study Iran LT overall; 36.8%, Incidence; 29.3%, P; 27.2%, E; 32.4% Random 386 87.5% No Others, interview No Yes 5
Fawole et al. 2005, population study Nigeria P; Current 31.3% Random 431 ? No Others, self-administered No Yes 4
Khawaja and Barazi 2005, population study Jordan LT P; 42.5%, C; 17.4% Random 262 (women) 95% Yes Others, interview No No 4
Seedat et al. 2005, population study U.S LT P; 16% Random 637 71% No Others, telephone interview No Yes 5
Amar and Gennaro 2005, college students U.S P; C; 48% Non-random 863 ? Yes AAS, self-reported No No 4
Koziol-McLain et al. 2004, ED New Zealand P; C; 21.3%, LT; 44.3% Random 174 60% Yes interview Yes Yes 6
Fanslow and Robinson 2004, population study New Zealand LT P, (Auckland); 15%, 17% (North Waikato) S: 9% in Auckland, 12% in North Waikato. Random 2,855 66.9% Yes WHO interview Yes Yes 8
Ramiro et al. 2004, population study Egypt, India, Philippine, Chile LT; (P): (Egypt); 11.1%, India= 34.6%, Philippines = 21.2%, Chile= 24.9% Random 422 (Chile), 631 (Egypt), L; 506, T; 700, V; 716, 1,000 (Philippines), Brazil=813 96.1%(Chile), 93.5%(Egypt), 88%(India), 100%(Philippine) Yes Developed by researchers using focus group, interview Yes Yes 7
C; (P): Chile= 3.6%, Egypt=10.5%, India=25.3%, Philippines= 6.2%
LT; E; Chile= 50.7%, Egypt= 10.5%, India=24.9%, Philippines=19.3%.
C; E; Chile=15.2%, Egypt=10.8%, India=16.2%, Philippines=4.8%
Swahnberg K et al. 2004, Gyn. clinic Sweden LT E; 16.8, P; 32.1%, S; 15.9%, non-random 2,439 81% Yes NorAQ No Yes 6
Koenig et al. 2004, population study Uganda LT coercive sex; 24% ? 4,279 93% Yes Interview, other methods No Yes 5
? Swahnberg I M et al. 2003, population study Sweden, validation study of NorAQ LT P; 36.4%, S; 16.9%, E; 21.4% random 1,168 61% Yes NorAQ Yes Yes 7
Grande et al. 2003, population study South Australia LT P; 16%, E; 19% random women=2,884 73.1% Yes Others, telephone survey Yes Yes 8
Harwell et al. 2003, population study American Indian C P; 5%, E; 18%, LT for both; 12% random women=588 94% Yes Others, telephone survey No Yes 6
Murty et al. 2003, population study Iowa C P; 2.9%, E; 46.7% random 689 67.1% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 7
? Bensley et al. 2003, population study Washington C P; 1.9%, E; 5.1% random 3,527 57% Yes BRFSS Yes Yes 7
Maziak and Asfar 2003, primary care. Syria C P; 23% random 411 97% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
El-Bassel et al. 2003, ED New York, American Latin C P, 15%, S; 6%, LT P; 43%, S; 20% Non-random 143 Not reported No Others, interview No No 1
Llika et al. 2002, primary care center Nigeria C overall; 40%, P; 15.8%, E; 20.1% random 300 100% Yes Others, interview No No 5
Okemgbo et al. 2002, population study Nigeria LT P; 78.7, %, S; 21.3%, Mutilation; 52.7% Random 308 Not reported Yes Others, interview No No 4
Basile 2002, population study U.S LT S; 34% Random 602 50% Yes Others, telephone survey No No 4
? Coker et al. 2002, population study U.S LT P; 13.3%, S; 4.3%, E; 12.1%. Random 6,790 72.1% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 7
Jewkes et al. 2002, population study South Africa LT P; 24.6%, Current; 9.5% Random 1,306 90.3% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 7
az-Olavarrieta et al. 2002, Hospital study Mexico P and/or S; C; 9%, LT; 26.3%. Non-random 1,780 71.9% Yes Self-administered,, AAS No No 5
Coker et al. 2002, family practice South Carolina LT P; 41.8%, S; 21.4%, E; 12.1%. ? 1,152 73% Yes Interview, ISA- to measure the severity of physical + AAS, web Scale for E, No Yes 6
Melnick et al. 2002, surgical trauma clinic U.S C P; 18% Not-reported 127 Not-reported Yes PVS, self-administered Yes Yes 5
Romito and Gerin 2002, ER+Community center Italy C P and/or S; 10.2% Non-random 510 76% Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
Raj and Silverman 2002, population study South Asian women in Boston C P; 26.6%, S; 15%, LTP;30.4%, S; 18.8% Snowball? 160 Not-reported Yes CTS, self-administered No No 3
Brokaw et al. 2002, ED New Mexico LT P; 47.3% Random 421 67.1% No Others, interview No Yes 5
Krishnan et al. 2001, ED U.S LT P; 72%, S; 20%, E; 92% Non-random 87 70% No Others, interview No No 2
Grynbaum et al. 2001, primary care Israel C P; 21.7%, Incidence; 10% Non-random 133 95.7% No PVS, self-administered No No 3
Barnes et al. 2001, University students African American LT P; 15.6%, E; 11.7% random 179 47% Yes ISA, self-administered No No 4
Weinbaum et al. 2001, population study California C P; 6% random 3,408 70% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 7
Parkinson et al. 2001, Paediatric clinic Massachusetts C P; 2.5%, LT; 16.5%. Non-random 553 71.2% No Others, self-administered Yes No 4
Coid et al. 2001, primary care London LT P; 41%, S; 9% Non-random 1,207 55% Yes Others, self-administered No No 3
Subramaniam and Sivayogan 2001, community health center Sri Lanka LT P; 30%, C; 22% random 417 55% Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
Jewkes et al. 2001, population study South Africa 1) Eastern Cape ( n  =  396): LT P; 26.8%, C P; 10.9%, LT S; 4.5%, C E; 51.4%. random 1,306 90.3% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 7
2) Mpumalanga: ( n  =  419), LT P; 28.4%, C; 11.9%, LT S; 7.2%, C E; 50%.
3) Northern Province: ( n  =  464); LT P; 19.1%, C; 4.5%, C E; 39.6%
Plichta and Falik 2001, population study U.S LT P; 19.1%, S; 20.4% ? 1,821 ? Yes CTS Yes No 5
Bauer et al. 2000, primary care California 1) C P; 10%, S;3%, E; 10%, random 734 74% Yes AAS, telephone survey No No 6
2) LT P; 45%, S; 17%, E; 34%
Harwell and Spence 2000, population study Montana C P; 3% random 1,017 90% Yes Others, telephone interview Yes Yes 7
Coker et al. 2000, population study south Carolina LT P; 10.6%, S; 7.8%, E; 7.4% random women=314 69.4% Yes ASS, telephone survey Yes Yes 8
Caetano et al. 2000, population study U.S couples C P black; 23%, Hispanic; 17%, whites; 12% random White=555, Black=358, Hispanic=527 85% Yes CTS, interview No No 6
? CDC 2000, population study. South Carolina LT P; 10.6%, E; 7.4%, S; 7.8% random 313 women 69.4% Yes AAS, telephone survey Yes No 7
? CDC 2000, population study. Washington LT P; 23.6% random 2,012 women 61.4% Yes CTS, telephone survey Yes No 6
Coker et al. 2000, family practice South Carolina LT P; 40%, E; 13.6%, C P; 8.9%, E; 7.5% Non-random 1,152 73% Yes Interview, ISA to measure current abuse, WEB to assess battering, AAS to measure life-time abuse No Yes 6
Coker et al. 2000, family practice Columbia LT P; 32%, S;17.3%, E; 12.5%, C P; 18.9%, S; 14.4%, ? 1,401 89% Yes Interview, ISA; for current S &P, WEBS; for battering, ASS; for life-time No No 5
Ernst et al. 2000, ED U.S C P; 5%, LT; 38.6% ? Random 57 78% Yes Self-reported, ISA No Yes 5
Ellsberg et al. 1999, population study Nicaragua LT P; 40%, C; 27% ? 488 100% Yes CTS, Interview Yes Yes 7
Tollestrup et al. 1999, population study Mexico C P; 6.7%, E; 13.5 Random 2,415 75 Yes CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7
Deyessa et al. 1998, population study Ethiopia LT P; 45% (n = 303), C; 10% Random 673 ? Yes Others, interview No Yes 5
Kershner et al. 1998, community clinic Minnesota LT P; 37%, C P; 6.6%, E; 21.1%, S; 2.1%, Non-random 1,693 82.4% Yes Others, self-administered No Yes 5
? CDC 1998, population study Georgia C P; 6%, LT; 30% Random 3,130 78% Yes Others, telephone survey Yes No 6
Pakieser et al. 1998, ED Texas LT P; 37%, C; 10%. Non-random 4,448 40% Yes Others, self-administered No No No
Sachs et al., ED California LT P; 14.7%, C; 3.9% Non-random 480 women 66.2% Yes Others, self-administered Yes No 5
Magdol et al. 1997, population study New Zealand C P; 27.1%, E; 83.8%
Schei et al. 2006, population study Australia LT P/E/S; 27.5% Random 356 90% Yes CTS, interview No No 6
Yuan et al. 2006, population study Native American LT P;45%,S; 14% Random 793 98% Yes Others, interview No No 5
Avdibegovic et al. 2006, psychiatric clinic Bosnia and Herzegovina LT,P; 75.9%, P & S; 43.5%, E; 85.6% Random 283 89.5% Not reported DVI, interview No No 4
Kocacik et al. 2006, population study Turkey LTE; 53.8%, P 38.3%, S;7.9% random 583 100% Not reported WHO, interview No No 5
WHO, Garcia-Moreno et al. 2006, population study Bangladesh, Brazil, Ethiopia, Japan, Namibia, Peru, Samoa (National), Serbia, Thailand, Tanzania, Bangladesh: LT (P:39.7%,S:37.4%), C (P19%,S:20.2%) random 24,097 Japan (60.2%), other countries range; 85–97.8% Yes Interview, built on CTS Yes Yes 8, in Japan=7
2-Brazil: LT (P27.2%,S 10.2%), C (P8.3%,S 2.8%).
3. Ethiopia: LT (P48.7%, S 58.6%), C (P29%, S 44.4%).
4. Japan; LT (P12.9%, S 6.2%), C (P3.1%, S 1.3%).
5. Namibia: LT (P30.6%,S 16.5%),C(P15.9%,S9.1%).
6. Peru: LT (P48.6%,S 22.5%), C (P16.9%, S 7.1% ).
7. Samoa: LT (P40.5%, S 19.5%), C (P17.9%, S 11.5%).
8. Serbia: LT (P22.8%, S 6.3%), C (P3.2%, S 1.1%).
9. Thailand: LT (P22.9%, S 29.9%), C(P7.9%, S 17.1%).
10. Tanzania: LT (P32.9%, S 23%), C (P14.8%, S 12.8%).
Hicks et al. 2006, population study Chinese American LT P;13%, C; 3%, random 323 56% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 7
Yang et al. 2006, population study Taiwanese aboriginal tribes LT prevalence P; 15%, C; 10.1%, S: 4% random 876 84.7% No ASS, interview Yes No 6
Thompson et al. 2006, population study Washington LT prevalence (P; 44%, S: 30.3%, E: 35.1%) random 3,568 56.4% Yes WEB, telephone survey No No 5
Ruiz-Perez et al. 2006, general practice Spain LT prevalence; P: 14.3%, E: 30.8%, S: 8.9% Random 1,402 88.35% Yes WHO, self-administrated No No 6
Ergin et al. 2005, primary care Turkey (Bursa) LT P; 34.1%, E; 15.8%, economic; 8.2%, all-type violence; 29.5% Not reported 1,427 71% Yes AAS, interview No Yes 6
McCloskey et al. 2005, population study Mohsi (Tanzania sub-Saharan Africa) LT P: 19.7%, S: 3.4%, C: P; 16.2%, S: 1.4%. Random 1,444 71% Yes One item from CTS, and 2 items from AAS, one item from SES, interview Yes No 7
Overall prevalence: 26%
Bengtsson-Tops 2005, psychiatric clinic Sweden LT P; 28%, S; 19%, Economic; 16%; E; 46%. Non-Random 1,382 79% Yes Others, interview No No 4
C; P; 6%, S;3%, Economic; 6%, E; 22%
Kyu and Kana 2005, population study Myanmar (South-East Asia), C; P; 27%, E; 69% Random 286 82% Yes CTS, self-administered No No 5
Burazeri et al. 2005, population study Albania C; P; 37% Random 1,196 87% No Others, interview Yes No 5
Mayda and Akkus 2004, population study Turkey LT P; 41.4%, E; 25.98%, S; 8.6%, E; 77.6% Non-Random 116 100% Yes Others, interview No Yes 4
McFarlane et al. 2005, primary care U.S C P&S; 8.9% in White, 6% in African American, 5.3% in Hispanic. Non random 7,443 Not reported Yes Others? No No 4
Romito et al. 2005, family practice Italy Overall P, S, E, LT: 27.4%, C: 19.9% Non random 444 78.6% Yes Others, self-administered No No 4
Newman et al. 2005, paediatric ED Chicago C P & S; 11% Non random 461 Not reported Not reported AAS, self-administered No No 3
Hegarty and Bush 2002, general practice Australia LT, P: 23.3%, E: 33.9%, S; 10.6% random 2,338 78.5% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes No 6
Dal Grande et al. 2003, population study Australia LT P; 16%, E; 19%. random 6,004 73.1% Yes Others, telephone interview Yes Yes 7
Xu X et al. 2005, gynecology clinic China (Fuzhou) Overall LT P, S, E; 43%, C; 26% random 685 89% Yes WHO Q, interview Yes No 7
Parish et al. 2004, population study China LT P; 34% random 1,665 women 76% No Others, interview No No 4
John et al. 2004, gynecology clinic North England LT P; 21%, C: 4% Non random 920 90% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 5
Romito et al. 2004, primary care Italy LT P; 14.1%, S; 17.6%, E; 16.4% Non random 542 8.6% Yes Others, Self-administered Yes No 5
C: P; 5.2%, S: 5.2%, E: 19%
Serquina-Ramiro et al. 2004, population study Manila LT P; 47.2%, C; 29% Random 1,000 90% Yes WorldSAFE, interview No Yes 7
Rivera- Rivera et al. 2004, population study Mexico LT P; 35.8% random 1,641 93.5% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 8
Keeling and Birch 2004, Hospital Warral, UK LT ?P: 34.9%, C; 14% Non random 294 99.3% No AAS, self administered Yes No 4
Cox et al. 2004, ED Northern Canada Overall life-time P & E: 51%, C: 26%, random 1,223 80% Yes Others, interview Yes Yes 8
Incidence: 18%
Kramer et al. 2004, primary care U.S LT: P; 49.5%, S; 265, E; 72%. Non random 1,268 9% in each cell Yes AAS, self administered Yes No 6
C; P; 11.7%, S; 4.2%, E; 27.9%.
Sethi et al. 2004, ER UK Life-time P.; 34.8%, C; 6.1% Non random 228 86.8% Yes WHO Q, interview Yes No 5
Peralta and Fleming 2003, family medicine Madison, Wisconsin C; P: 10.3%, E; 43.5% Non random 399 Not reported Yes CTS, self reported No No 4
Ruiz-Perez et al. 2006, primary care Spain LT of any violence; 22.8% Non random 449 89.08% Yes WHO Q, self administered No No 5
Lown et al. 2006, population study California C P; 27.4%, S; 6.7% Non random 1,786 85% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 7
Ghazizadeh et al. 2005, population study Iran LT P; 38%, C; 15% random 1,040 97% No Others, interview No No  
Faramarzi et al. 2005, obstetric/gynecology clinic Iran C P; 15%, S; 42.4%, E; 81.5% Non random 2,400 Not clear Yes AAS, interview No No 5
Ahmed and Elmradi 2005, medical center Sudan C P & E; 41.6% Non random 492 86.8% Yes Others, self-administered No No 4
Evans-Campbell et al. 2006, population study New York LT P; 40% random 112 women 83% No Others, interview No Yes 4
op-Sidibe et al. 2006, population study Egypt LT P; 34.3%, C; 47% random 6,566 99% Yes Others, interview No No 5
Apler et al. 2005, primary care Turkey LT P; 58.7%, C P; 41.1%%, E; 33.6% Non random 506 Not reported Yes AAS, interview No No 4
Coid et al. 2003, general practice Hackney, east London LT S; 24% Non random 1,206 54% Yes Others, self administered Yes No 4
Siegel et al. 2003, pediatric setting U.S Incidence; 6%, LT P; 22%, C: 16% Non random 435 Not reported No Others, self administered No Yes 3
Boyle and Todd 2003, ED Cambridge LT P; 21.3%, C; 6.1%, incidence: 1.2% random 307 84.8% Yes Others, interview Yes No 5
Shaikh et al. 2003, obstetric/gynecology clinic Pakistan LT P; 55.9%, E; 75.9%, S; 46.9% Non random 307 70.4% Yes Others, interview No No 3
Richardson et al. 2002, general practice East London LT P:;41%, C; 17%, E; 74% Non random 2,192 64% Yes Others, self administered Yes Yes 6
Bradley et al. 2002, general practice Ireland LT P; 39%, E; 54% Non random 2,615 72% Yes Others, self administered Yes No 5
Mazza et al. 2001, population study Australia Overall LT prevalence; 28.5%, E; 17%, S; 40.8%, Non random 395 90% Yes CTS, self-administered Yes No 6
Zachary et al. 2001, ED New York C P; 7.9%, LT; 38% Non random 795 76.8% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 6
Az- Olavarrieta et al. 2001, hospital study Mexico LT P; 14%, E; overall; 40%, S; 9.3% Non random 1,255 83% Yes Others, elf-administered Yes No 5
Augenbraun et al. 2001, hospital study Brooklyn, NY LT P; 37.6%, E; 32.8%, C P; 15.5%, E; 19.1% Non random 375 96% Yes Others, elf-administered No Yes 5
Lown and Vega 2001, population study Fresno County, California C P; 10.7% Random 1,155 90% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes Yes 8
Hedin et al. 2000, gynecology clinic Sweden C; P; 6%, S; 3%, E; 12.5% Non random 207 64% Yes SVAW, self-administered No No 3
Jones et al. 1999, HMO survey Washington DC LT P, S, E; 36.9%, C; 4% Non random 10, 599 14% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 4
Duffy et al. 1999, pediatric ED New England city LT P; 52%, S; 21%, Non random 157 Not reported Yes AAS, interview No Yes 4
Fikree and Bhatti 1999, primary care Pakistan, Karachi LT P; 34% Non random 150 Not reported No Others, interview No No 1
Dearwater et al. 1998, ED Pennsylvania & California LT P/E; 36.9%, C P/S; 14.4% Non random 4,641 74% Yes AAS, self-administered Yes Yes 7
Ernst et al. 1997, ED New Orleans LT non P; 22%, P; 33%, C non-Pl; 15%, current P; 19% random 283 women 94% Yes ISA, self-administered No No 5
Feldhaus et al. 1997, ED Colorado C P; 25.5% Random 322 76% Yes PVS, interview No Yes 7
Salena et al. 2004, population study southeast US C P; 70%, LT; 17% Non random 309 Not reported Yes Others, self-administered No Yes 4
Biroscak et al. 2006, ED Michigan Incidence P, S; 38.8% Random 2,926 82% Yes Others, chart review Yes No 6
Salam et al. 2006, population study Bangladesh Overall P, S, E; 44.9% random 496 73% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
Hofner et al. 2005, ED Switzerland Overall C P, E; 10.8% Non random 1,894 77.2% Yes PVS, interview No No 5
Eisikovits et al. 2004, population study Israel LT P; 13%, C; 6%, C E; 56% Random 2,092 70% Yes CTS, self-administered No Yes 7
Rinfret-Raynor et al. 2004, population study Canada (Quebec) C; P; 6.1%, S; 6.8%, E; 66.2% Random 2,120 76.6% Yes SVS, CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7
Krishnan et al. 2005, population study South India LT P; 29%, S; 12% Random 397 88 Yes Others, interview Yes No 6
Koziol-McLain et al. 1999, population study (PHD) Colorado C P, S; 8.4% Random 409 82% Yes PVS, followed by CTS, telephone survey Yes Yes 8
Jain et al. 2004, population study India LT P; 48%, C; 24%, C E; 38%, Random 500 79% Yes Others, interview No Yes 6
Csoboth et al. 2003, population study Hungarian LT P; 31.7% Random 3,615 94% Yes Others, self-administered No No 5
Wijma et al. 2003, gynecology clinic 5 Nordic countries LT P; 47.7%, C; 3.9%. Non random 4,729 77 Yes NorAQ, self-administered No No 5
LT S; 24.1%, C; 1.2%,
LT E; 26.8%, C; 6.2%.
Medina et al. 2003, population study Spain P; 8.05%, S; 11.48%, E; 42.52% random 2,015 71.3% Yes CTS, interview Yes Yes 8
Smith et al. 2002, population study U.S C P; 8.6%, S; 8.2%, E; 13.5% random 268 45% Yes AAS, self-administered No No 4
Yoshihama et al. 2001, population study Japan LT P; 51.7%, S; 29.9%, E; 75.8% random 211 52% Yes CTS, interview No Yes 5
X Xu et al. 2001, obstetric/gynecology clinic, PHD China LT P; 38%, S;16% random 600 885 Yes WHO, interview No No 6
C P; 21%, S; 12%
Tollestrup et al. 1999, population study Mexico C E; 13.5%, P; 6.7% random 2,418 75% Yes CTS, telephone survey No Yes 7

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Alhabib, S., Nur, U. & Jones, R. Domestic Violence Against Women: Systematic Review of Prevalence Studies. J Fam Viol 25, 369–382 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9298-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-009-9298-4

Keywords

  • Domestic violence
  • Women
  • Prevalence
  • Review