4.6 Article

The Spatial Epidemiology of Intimate Partner Violence: Do Neighborhoods Matter?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 182, 期 1, 页码 58-66

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwv016

关键词

Bayesian spatial modeling; concentrated disadvantage; disease mapping; intimate partner violence; neighborhoods; risk probability; small-area variation; spatial epidemiology

资金

  1. Spanish Institute for Women (Instituto de la Mujer, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad)
  2. European Social Fund [MUJER2012-PI-154]
  3. Spanish Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad [MTM2013-42323-P]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined whether neighborhood-level characteristics influence spatial variations in the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV). Geocoded data on IPV cases with associated protection orders (n = 1,623) in the city of Valencia, Spain (2011-2013), were used for the analyses. Neighborhood units were 552 census block groups. Drawing from social disorganization theory, we explored 3 types of contextual influences: concentrated disadvantage, concentration of immigrants, and residential instability. A Bayesian spatial random-effects modeling approach was used to analyze influences of neighborhood-level characteristics on small-area variations in IPV risk. Disease mapping methods were also used to visualize areas of excess IPV risk. Results indicated that IPV risk was higher in physically disordered and decaying neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with low educational and economic status levels, high levels of public disorder and crime, and high concentrations of immigrants. Results also revealed spatially structured remaining variability in IPV risk that was not explained by the covariates. In this study, neighborhood concentrated disadvantage and immigrant concentration emerged as significant ecological risk factors explaining IPV. Addressing neighborhood-level risk factors should be considered for better targeting of IPV prevention.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据