© pexels
Intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy poses a serious threat to both the pregnant individual and their infant. IPV can be physical, sexual, or psychological, often leading to mental health struggles, substance use, and pregnancy complications. Previous research has shown that lockdowns and stay-at-home orders led to a surge in IPV cases.
COVID-19’s impact on IPV
A recent American study sheds light on how COVID-19-related stressors influenced IPV experiences and affected postpartum outcomes. Researchers analysed 2020 data from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS), covering 29 U.S. jurisdictions. The study included over 14,000 individuals who had given birth in 2020.
Participants were asked whether their partner had physically hurt them during pregnancy. Another question assessed increased aggression, measuring physical, sexual, or emotional violence linked to COVID-19. Researchers also examined economic stress, housing insecurity, childcare difficulties, mental health struggles, and postpartum health outcomes.
Increase in IPV cases during the pandemic
The study confirmed a rise in IPV cases during COVID-19. 1.6% of respondents reported physical IPV during pregnancy, while 3.1% experienced increased partner aggression due to COVID-19.
Demographics played a key role in IPV risk. IPV rates were higher among young mothers (ages 20-24), unmarried individuals, and those with lower education levels. Racial disparities were evident, with Non-Hispanic Black (3.0%) and American Indian/Alaska Native (4.3%) respondents reporting higher IPV rates compared to Non-Hispanic White respondents (1.0%).
Economic and social stress increased IPV risk
Beyond demographics, COVID-19-related stressors significantly increased IPV risk. Economic instability, including job loss, reduced work hours, and financial struggles, doubled the risk of IPV.
Housing insecurity also played a role. Individuals who had to move or became homeless reported IPV rates 2-5 times higher than those with stable housing. Additionally, childcare struggles, anxiety, depression, and increased verbal conflicts further heightened the risk.
Postpartum effects of IPV
Survivors of IPV faced serious postpartum health consequences. They had twice the rate of postpartum depression and cigarette smoking compared to those who did not experience IPV. They were also less likely to attend postpartum check-ups, potentially affecting their health and recovery.
Unexpected findings and study limitations
One unexpected finding was that physical IPV prevalence (1.6%) was slightly lower than pre-pandemic estimates (2.0%-2.2%). The authors suggest that this could be due to:
- Survey limitations that made reporting IPV more difficult.
- Reduced opportunities for reporting during lockdown.
- Protective effects of separation from abusive partners.
The study relied on self-reported data, which may underestimate IPV cases due to recall bias and social desirability bias. Additionally, it only included individuals with live births, excluding those who experienced miscarriage or stillbirth due to IPV.
Call for stronger IPV prevention measures
The findings underscore the urgent need for stronger IPV prevention efforts, particularly during public health crises. Healthcare workers play a crucial role in detecting and addressing IPV, making screening and referrals to support services essential.
Addressing economic inequality and housing instability could help reduce IPV cases. The study highlights the importance of integrating IPV prevention strategies into public health responses to ensure better support for vulnerable populations.
Disclaimer for those in need
If you or someone you know is experiencing intimate partner violence, support is available. You are not alone. Find a confidential helpline in your country here:
List of Helplines in 46 Countries
Your safety matters. Please reach out.
Full list of authors: D’Angelo, D. V.; Kapaya, M.; Swedo, E. A.; Basile, K. C.; Agathis, N. T.; Zapata, L. B.; Lee, R. D.; Li, Q.; Ruvalcaba, Y.; Meeker, J. R.; Salvesen von Essen, B.; Clayton, H. B.; Warner, L.
DOI: 10.1177/00333549241278631
