MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410064812 · doi:10.5694/mja2.52660

The prevalence of intimate partner violence in Australia: a national survey

2025· article· en· W4410064812 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Mathews, Kelsey Hegarty, Harriet L. MacMillan, Monica Madzoska, Holly E Erskine, Rosana Pacella, James G. Scott, Hannah J. Thomas, Franziska Meinck, Daryl Higgins, David Lawrence, Divna Haslam, Sara Roetman, Eva Malacova, Timothy Cubitt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Medical Journal of Australia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilDepartment of the Prime Minister and CabinetAustralian Institute of CriminologyQueensland University of TechnologyDepartment of Social Services, Australian Government
KeywordsDomestic violenceSexual violenceMedicineDemographySexual orientationConfidence intervalPoison controlInjury preventionSuicide preventionPhysical abusePsychiatryPsychologyMedical emergencySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence in Australia of intimate partner violence, each intimate partner violence type, and multitype intimate partner violence, overall and by gender, age group, and sexual orientation. STUDY DESIGN: National survey; Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)-Short Form administered in mobile telephone interviews, as a component of the Australian Child Maltreatment Study. SETTING: Australia, 9 April - 11 October 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 8503 people aged 16 years or older: 3500 aged 16-24 years and about 1000 each aged 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, or 65 years or older. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportions of participants who had ever been in an intimate partner relationship since the age of 16 years (overall, and by gender, age group, and sexual orientation) who reported ever experiencing intimate partner physical, sexual, or psychological violence. RESULTS: Survey data were available for 8503 eligible participants (14% of eligible persons contacted), of whom 7022 had been in intimate relationships. The prevalence of experiencing any intimate partner violence was 44.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.3-46.2%); physical violence was reported by 29.1% (95% CI, 27.7-30.4%) of participants, sexual violence by 11.7% (95% CI, 10.8-12.7%), and psychological violence by 41.2% (95% CI, 39.8-42.6%). The prevalence of experiencing intimate partner violence was significantly higher among women (48.4%; 95% CI, 46.3-50.4%) than men (40.4%; 95% CI, 38.3-42.5%); the prevalence of physical, sexual, and psychological violence were also higher for women. The proportion of participants of diverse genders who reported experiencing intimate partner violence was high (62 of 88 participants; 69%; 95% CI, 55-83%). The proportion of non-heterosexual participants who reported experiencing intimate partner violence (70.2%; 95% CI, 65.7-74.7%) was larger than for those of heterosexual orientation (43.1%; 95% CI, 41.6-44.6%). More women (33.7%; 95% CI, 31.7-35.6%) than men (22.7%; 95% CI, 20.9-24.5%) reported multitype intimate partner violence. Larger proportions of participants aged 25-44 years (51.4%; 95% CI, 48.9-53.9%) or 16-24 years (48.4%, 95% CI, 46.1-50.6%) reported experiencing intimate partner violence than of participants aged 45 years or older (39.9%; 95% CI, 37.9-41.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Intimate partner violence is widespread in Australia. Women are significantly more likely than men to experience any intimate partner violence, each type of violence, and multitype intimate partner violence. A comprehensive national prevention policy is needed, and clinicians should be helped with recognising and responding to intimate partner violence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.411
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.083
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Medical Journal of AustraliaSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207