Socio-Economic Characteristics and Risk Factors Affecting Domestic Violence in Montenegro: A Case-Control Study
Background: Domestic violence is defined as the combined pattern of physical, psychological, economic and/or sexual violence against a family member. Intimate partner violence is the most common form. We aimed to present the basic characteristics of the Montenegrin families and family members affected by domestic violence, with the intent to inform the global mosaic of differences related to cultural specificities.
Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using 323 cases judicially processed and officially judged according to Criminal Act from 2015-2017 in Montenegro. Socioeconomic characteristic were investigated followed by analysis of many variables.
Results: Demographic characteristics, socio-economic status, and other characteristics of the perpetrators and the victims, as well as characteristics of violent act with posible risk factors, are presented. The results of case-control analyisis of intimate-partner relationships are given, too.
Conclusion: A typical example of domestic violence in Montenegro shows an intimate couple with a violent male and a victimized female partner, living in a rented residence in the suburbs, with both partners in the fourth decade of their lives. The most frequent income level was poor, with half of the batterers and nearly three quarters of the victims unsatisfied with their marriage. The increased presence of such factors (both modifiable and unmodifiable) in the partiarchical families suffering from domestic violence should spark interest in public health and government authorities regarding domestic violence screening adapted for patriarchical societies.
2. Mitchell L. (2011). Domestic violence in Australia - An overview of the issues. Background note. Canberra: Parliamen-tary Library.
3. Eisenstat SA, Bancroft L. (1999). Domestic violence. N Engl J Med, 341: 886-892.
4. Freund KM, Bak SM, Blackhall L. (1996). Identifying DV in primary care practice. J Gen Intern Med, 11: 44-46.
5. Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen H, Ellesberg M, et al (2015). WHO multi-country study on women’s health and DV against women: Initial results on prevalence, health out-comes and women’s responses. Geneva: World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/43309
6. Council of Europe (2008). Combating vio-lence against women: Towards a Council of Europe Convention. Report of the Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men, Doc. 11702. Retrieved from https://pace.coe.int/en/files/11992
7. Statistics Canada (2015). Family violence in Canada: a statistical profile, 2013. Re-trieved from https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/pub/85-002-x/2014001/article/14114-eng.pdf?st=sTqI-1M
8. Beydoun HA, Beydoun MA, Kaufman JS, et al (2012). Intimate partner violence against adult women and its association with major depressive disorder, depres-sive symptoms and postpartum depres-sion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med, 75(6): 959-975.
9. Black MC, Basile KC, Brieding MJ, et al (2011). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (Nisvs): 2010 Summary Report. National Center for In-jury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
10. Wallach HS, Weingram Z, Avitan O (2010). Attitudes toward DV: a cultural perspec-tive. J Interpers Violence, 25(7): 1284-1297.
11. Tokuç B, Ekuklu G, Avcioglu S (2010). Domestic violence against married wom-en in Edirne. J Interpers Violence, 25(5): 832-847.
12. Yoshioka M, Gilbert L, El-Bassel N, et al (2003). Social support and disclosure of abuse: Comparing south Asian, African American, and Hispanic battered women. J Fam Viol, 18: 171-180.
13. Barrett BJ, St. Pierre M (2011). Variations in women’s help seeking in response to in-timate partner violence: Findings from a Canadian population-based study. Violence Against Women, 17(1): 47-70.
14. Ayrancı Ü, Günay Y, Ünlüoğlu I (2002). Domestic violence in pregnancy by the husband: a research among women who apply to baseline health institution. Anado-lu Psikiyatri Derg, 3: 75-87.
15. Xu X, Kerley KR, Sirisunyaluck F (2011). Understanding gender and domestic vio-lence from a sample of married women in urban Thailand. J Fam Issues, 32: 791–819.
16. Yount KM, Li L (2010). Somestic violence against married women in Egypt. Sex Roles, 63: 332-347.
17. Fagan AA. (2005). The relationship between adolescent physical abuse and criminal offending: support for an enduring and generalized cycle of violence. J Fam Viol, 20: 279–290.
18. Lee RD, Walters ML, Hall JE, et al (2013). Behavioral and attitudinal factors differentiating male intimate partner violence perpetrators with and without history of childhood family violence. J Fam Viol, 28: 85-94.
19. Dannerbeck AM. (2005). Differences in parenting attributes, experiences, and behaviors of delinquent youth with and without a parental history of incarceration. Youth Violence Juv Justice, 3: 199-213.
|Issue||Vol 52 No 6 (2023)|
|Domestic violence Intimate partner violence Socio-economic factors Injury Social health|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|