Locked down, locked out: a cross-sectional study on experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) and barriers to formal and informal support during COVID-19 lockdowns in Ontario
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic intensified pre-existing social and health inequities, with individuals actively experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) facing heightened risks and barriers to support. While lockdowns were necessary for public health, they also increased isolation and limited access to essential formal and informal supports. This study explores the association between IPV experienced during Ontario’s COVID-19 lockdowns (March 2020–June 2021) and barriers to both formal (e.g., health, legal, housing) and informal (e.g., friends, family) support systems. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted with 1,344 participants, 18 years or older, who were in an adult relationship and residing in Ontario, Canada during the lockdowns. Participants were recruited through non-probability convenience, quota-based sampling from a pre-existing online panel (Leger Opinion, LEO). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between IPV and support barriers, controlling for demographic, relational, and health-related factors. RESULTS: Nearly one in four participants (23.4%) self-identified as experiencing IPV (i.e., emotional, sexual, physical, mental, financial, coercive, spiritual and/or technology-based abuse) during the lockdowns. IPV survivors had over three times greater odds of facing multiple barriers to formal supports (aOR = 3.4; 95% CI: 2.16–5.38) and 1.6 times higher odds of decreased communication with friends or family (aOR = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.06–2.31). Risk factors for reduced access included low household income, informal caregiving responsibilities, and perceived community violence. Poor physical and mental health were also significant predictors of reduced access to formal and informal supports. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights how COVID-19 lockdowns compounded access barriers for participants who self-identified as IPV survivors, limiting both formal services and informal networks. Emergency preparedness plans should maintain IPV service capacity during lockdowns through essential service designations, implement technology-based interventions such as discreet online platforms and text-based safety planning, and create targeted outreach for high-risk groups including low-income households and caregivers. More inclusive frameworks are also needed to ensure that supports are responsive to all survivors—particularly as men and women in this study reported similar IPV experiences and outcomes during lockdowns. Future pandemic responses must proactively fund IPV services rather than rely on reactive, underfunded crisis interventions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».