Impact of socio-demographic and economic factors on intimate partner violence justification among women in union in Papua New Guinea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Justification of intimate partner violence (IPV) has several implications, including reduced likelihood of help-seeking, increased experiences episodes of partner abuses, and poor health status and outcomes. However, in Papua New Guinea (PNG), where IPV is among the highest globally, little is known about factors influencing IPV justification among women in union. This study aimed at examining the prevalence of IPV justification and associated factors among women in union in PNG. METHODS: Data from the nationally representative cross-sectional demographic and health survey conducted among women aged 15-49 years during 2016-2018 in PNG were used. In all 9,943 women aged 15-49 years who were married or cohabiting during the survey were included. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions were performed and the results reported as crude odds ratios (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Overall, almost 7 in 10 women (68.9%, 95%CI:68.0-69.9) justified IPV. Multiple regression analysis revealed that co-habitation (aOR: 1.33, 95%CI: 1.17-1.50, p < 0.001), polygyny (aOR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.20-1.53, p < 0.001), exposure to television (aOR: 1.24, 95%CI: 1.08-1.42, p = 0.002) and richer wealth status (aOR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.01-1.40, p = 0.035), significantly increased the odds of justifying IPV. We found significantly lower odds of IPV justification among women aged 45-49 years (aOR: 0.53, 95%CI: 0.37-0.77, p = 0.001) and those with higher level of education (aOR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.42-0.74, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of IPV justification was high among women in union in PNG. Women's justification of IPV was associated with socio-demographic and economic factors. Our findings call for appropriate strategies including public education and empowerment programmes that target IPV in PNG. Moreover, strategies and interventions to address IPV justification should target the women's socio-economic and demographic contexts that influence IPV justification.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".