Experience of Intimate Partner Violence and Help-Seeking Behaviour among Women in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is recognised as a fundamental violation of women’s human rights and a widespread phenomenon in Africa. Women’s low socioeconomic empowerment, cultural acceptability, and lack of social support exacerbate the health and psychosocial outcomes of IPV among African women. To date, there is no systematic research on IPV and its association with healthcare use among adult women in Uganda. Therefore, we conducted the present study on IPV among Ugandan women of childbearing age (15–49 years). Cross-sectional data on 7536 women were collected from the Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS—Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016). The objectives were to assess the predictors of IPV as well as help-seeking behaviour for victims of IPV. IPV was assessed by women’s experience of physical, emotional and sexual violence and healthcare use was assessed by self-reported medical visits during the last 12 months. Logistic regression methods were used to analyse the data. According to descriptive findings, which showed that more than half of the women reported experiencing any IPV (55.3%, 95%CI = 53.6, 57.0), emotional IPV (41.2%, 95%CI = 39.6, 42.8) was the most prevalent of all three categories, followed by physical (39.3%, 95%CI = 37.7, 40.9) and sexual IPV (22.0%, 95%CI = 20.7, 23.3). In the multivariate analysis, higher age, rural residence, religious background (non-Christian), ethnicity (Banyankore and Itseo), secondary/higher education and husband’s alcohol drinking habit were positively associated with women’s experience of IPV. Husband’s alcohol drinking was found to be a significant barrier to seeking help among those who experienced IPV. In conclusion, our findings suggest a noticeably high prevalence of IPV among Ugandan women. There are important sociodemographic and cultural patterns in the occurrence of IPV that need to be taken into account when designing intervention policies. Special attention should be given to women living with husbands/partners who drink alcohol, as this might increase their odds of experiencing IPV, as well as reduce the likelihood of seeking help.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".