In 2023, almost one out of three ever-partnered Turkish women had experienced domestic violence. In comparison, only 12 percent of women living in Switzerland had experienced domestic violence in their lifetime.

As of 2024, Timor-Leste had the highest prevalence of domestic violence against women in the Asia-Pacific region, with ** percent of women having experienced physical or sexual violence in a partnership before. In contrast, approximately *** percent of women in Singapore had experienced domestic violence as of 2024.

This statistic presents the share of people who think in selected European countries who think domestic abuse is one of the top three issues facing women as of 2019. According to data published by Ipsos, Serbia had the highest share of people who thought that domestic abuse was one of the most important issues at ** percent of respondents.

BackgroundViolence against women by an intimate partner (DV) is a serious public health and human rights issue. Attitudes justifying DV strongly predict its perpetration and victimisation. This paper presents gendered ecological analyses of the societal acceptance of DV in 49 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) across geographical regions.Methods and findingsWe utilised data from 49 Demographic and Health Surveys conducted between 2005 and 2017, United Nations Statistics and topic-specific meta-databases. DV acceptance was measured as the justification of ‘wife-beating’ in at least one of five circumstances, and by the summative scale. Stepwise multiple linear regression examined country-level social, economic and political empowerment predictors of societal acceptance of DV amongst women, men, and the aggregate gender difference. Women were more likely than men to justify DV in Sub-Saharan Africa and South (east) Asia with societal acceptance of DV being more widespread in these regions compared with Latin America, the Caribbean, Central/West Asia and Europe. Political conflict and limited economic rights for women were associated with higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and men. Men in more democratic countries were less likely to justify DV. Amongst women, higher national female literacy rates predicted lower levels of justification. There were higher levels of DV acceptance amongst women and a wider aggregate gender difference in countries with a larger representation of women in national parliament.ConclusionJustification of DV is widespread amongst women and men in LMICs with acceptance rates varying across countries and regions. Gender differences in the impact of contextual factors on DV acceptance supports a gendered approach to national-level interventions. Our findings highlight the need for tailored interventions targeting DV acceptance in conflict-impacted societies. The emphasis of inter(national) policies on the ‘empowerment’ domains of widely-used gender (in)equality indices need to be coupled with strategies tackling discriminatory gender norms.

In 2019, the highest percentage of females who suffered from intimate partner violence in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region was in Iraq at about **** percent of the females. Within the region, Syria, Libya and Iraq have been suffering from conflict and humanitarian crises.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB) outcomes for disabled people in England and Wales aged 16 and over, with analysis by disability status, country, sex, age, impairment type, type of ASB. Domestic abuse and sexual assault outcomes for disabled people in England and Wales aged 16 to 59 years, with analysis by disability status, age, sex, impairment type, impairment severity, country and region. All outcomes using the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) data.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects outcomes of mothers and their offspring. This systematic review collated the worldwide literature on the prevalence rates of different types of IPV in pregnancy.Methods: Two reviewers independently identified cross sectional and cohort studies of IPV prevalence in pregnancy in online databases (PubMed, WOS and Scopus), selected and extracted data [participants' country, study quality, measurement tool (validation and purpose) and rates of IPV in pregnancy]. We considered a high quality study if it had a prospective design, an adequate sampling method, a sample size estimation, a response rate > 90%, a contemporary ascertainment of IPV in the index pregnancy, and a well-developed detailed IPV tool. We performed random effects meta-analysis and explored reasons for heterogeneity of rates.Results: One hundred fifty-five studies were included, of which 44 (28%) met two-thirds of the quality criteria. Worldwide prevalence of physical (126 studies, 220,462 participants), psychological (113 studies, 189,630 participants) and sexual (98 studies, 155,324 participants) IPV in pregnancy was 9.2% (95% CI 7.7–11.1%, I2 95.9%), 18.7% (15.1–22.9%, I2 98.2%), 5.5% (4.0–7.5%, I2 93.4%), respectively. Where several types of IPV were reported combined, the prevalence of any kind of IPV (118 studies, 124,838 participants) was 25.0% (20.3, 30.5%, I2 98.6%). IPV rates varied within and between continents, being the highest in Africa and the lowest in Europe (p < 0.001). Rates also varied according to measurement purpose, being higher for diagnosis than for screening, in physical (p = 0.022) and sexual (p = 0.014) IPV.Conclusions: IPV prevalence in pregnancy varies across countries, with one-quarter of mothers exposed on average globally. Routine systematic antenatal detection should be applied worldwide.Systematic Review Registration: identifier: CRD42020176131.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

Sample size of Demographic and health surveys and prevalence of intimate-partner violence across 30 Sub-Saharan African countries.

In 2024, gender-based violence remained a global issue. However, some populations appeared to be more at risk than others. For instance, around *** percent of women with high income aged between 30 and 34 had been subjected to physical or sexual violence in the past year. On the other hand, for women the same age but with low income, the percentage reached ****.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

Log-rank test for the predicators of first intimate partner violence.

Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts Market Outlook

As per our latest research, the global Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market size in 2024 is valued at USD 1.35 billion, reflecting the increasing prioritization of personal safety technologies worldwide. The market is anticipated to grow at a robust CAGR of 14.2% from 2025 to 2033, driven by technological advancements and heightened public awareness, reaching a forecasted value of USD 4.27 billion by 2033. This surge is primarily attributed to the growing integration of real-time alert systems with law enforcement and social services, as well as the expanding adoption of mobile and cloud-based solutions for domestic violence prevention and response.

A significant growth factor for the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market is the increasing prevalence and awareness of domestic violence cases globally. Governments and non-governmental organizations are intensifying efforts to protect victims through legislative frameworks and proactive safety measures. The integration of exclusion zone alerts with wearable devices and mobile applications has enabled real-time monitoring and rapid response, thereby reducing the risk of repeat offenses. Furthermore, the rising demand for advanced safety solutions among vulnerable populations, including women, children, and the elderly, is fueling the adoption of these technologies. Public campaigns and educational initiatives are also playing a crucial role in raising awareness about the importance of exclusion zone alerts, which in turn is boosting market growth.

Technological progress is another major driver propelling the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market forward. The adoption of GPS-based, RFID-based, and mobile application-based alert systems has revolutionized the way exclusion zones are monitored and enforced. Innovations in geofencing, real-time location tracking, and automated notifications have significantly enhanced the efficiency and reliability of these systems. Moreover, the integration of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms is enabling predictive analytics, which helps in identifying potential threats and proactively alerting authorities and victims. The proliferation of smartphones and IoT devices has further accelerated the deployment of exclusion zone alert solutions, making them more accessible and user-friendly for end-users.

The supportive regulatory environment and increased funding for domestic violence prevention initiatives are also contributing to market expansion. Many countries have enacted strict laws mandating the use of exclusion zone alerts for offenders, particularly in cases involving restraining orders. Government agencies are collaborating with technology providers and social service organizations to implement comprehensive safety networks. Additionally, the availability of grants and subsidies for developing and deploying these technologies is encouraging innovation and market entry by new players. These policy-driven initiatives are expected to sustain the market’s upward trajectory over the forecast period.

From a regional perspective, North America currently dominates the Domestic Violence Exclusion Zone Alerts market, accounting for the largest share in 2024, followed by Europe and Asia Pacific. The presence of robust legal frameworks, advanced technological infrastructure, and active collaboration between law enforcement and social services has positioned North America as a leader in this space. However, the Asia Pacific region is expected to witness the highest growth rate during the forecast period, driven by rising awareness, increasing smartphone penetration, and government initiatives aimed at combating domestic violence. Europe is also experiencing steady growth, supported by stringent regulations and cross-border cooperation among member states. Latin America and the Middle East & Africa are gradually catching up, with ongoing efforts to strengthen legal protections and improve access to safety technologies.

Component Analysis</h2&

Overview:

This project aims to investigate the potential correlation between the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of approximately 190 countries for the years 2021 and 2023 and their corresponding crime ratings. The crime ratings are represented on a scale from 0 to 10, with 0 indicating minimal or null crime activity and 10 representing the highest level of criminal activity.

Dataset:

The dataset used in this project comprises GDP data for the years 2021 and 2023 for around 190 countries, sourced from reputable international databases. Additionally, crime rating scores for the same countries and years are collected from credible sources such as governmental agencies, law enforcement organizations, or reputable research institutions.

Methodology:

• Data Collection: GDP data for 2021 and 2023, along with crime rating scores, are gathered for approximately 190 countries.
• Data Preprocessing: The collected data is cleaned and standardized to ensure consistency and compatibility across different datasets.
• Analysis: Statistical methods and data visualization techniques are employed to explore the potential relationship between GDP and crime ratings.
• Interpretation: Findings from the analysis are interpreted to determine the strength and direction of any observed correlations between GDP and crime ratings.
• Conclusion: Based on the analysis results, conclusions are drawn regarding the existence and significance of the relationship between GDP and crime ratings.

Expected Outcomes:

Identification of any significant correlations or patterns between GDP and crime ratings across different countries. Insights into the potential socioeconomic factors influencing crime rates and their relationship with economic indicators like GDP. Implications for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and researchers in understanding the dynamics between economic development and crime prevalence.

The main purpose of the EU survey on gender-based violence against women and other forms of inter-personal violence (EU-GBV) is to assess the prevalence of violence in order to address the requirements of the Istanbul Convention. The survey covers psychological, physical and sexual violence by intimate partner, physical and sexual violence by non-partner, sexual harassment at work, violence experienced in childhood and stalking by any perpetrator.

The data collection for the first wave (year 2021) was conducted in voluntary bases and took place between September 2020 and March 2024 in the EU countries, based on their national timetables. Eurostat coordinated data collection in 18 Member States (BE, BG, DK, EE, EL, ES, FR, HR, LV, LT, MT, NL, AT, PL, PT, SI, SK, FI). Additionally, Italy agreed to share data from their national survey on violence against women, but the implementation of the survey was postponed from 2022 to 2024 due to administrative difficulties. The indicators disseminated for Italy are based on the last national survey conducted in 2014, given that the prevalence of gender-based violence is not expected to differ significantly over time, specifically for prevalence of lifetime violence, and the indicators will be updated when 2024 survey results will be available. Moreover, indicators on sexual harassment at work disseminated for Italy are based on the national victimisation survey of 2022-2023. To cover the full EU, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) and the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) launched a joint data collection in the eight Member States not covered by Eurostat (CZ, DE, IE, CY, LU, HU, RO, SE) following the EU-GBV manual. Accordingly, data disseminated for wave 2021 and estimated EU-average is based on a joint data collection by Eurostat, FRA and EIGE.

The disseminated indicators focus on violence by perpetrator, disaggregated by type of violence, by time of occurrence, by age and by personal characteristics of the respondent; and on frequency, severity, seriousness and reporting of the experienced violence.

However, it is necessary to point out that survey data might only be a close proxy to real prevalence as survey data depends on the willingness of the respondent to disclose any violence experienced. Therefore, to understand the prevalence of violence and disclosure rates by survey respondents, it is important to take into account the extent to which violence is tolerated in the wider community. For example, in cultures where people are ready to talk about their painful experiences, their answers may reflect more accurately their own experiences rather than community norms. To provide some background on country specific context, few indicators on commonness and awareness of support services are disseminated.

It is essential to avoid using sensitive terms that could cause anxiety or concern when introducing the survey. Accordingly, the general recommendation was that the survey name should be neutral when contacting the respondents. The aim was to avoid alerting any perpetrators of domestic violence to the nature of the survey or frightening off any victims of violence, in order to minimise non-response, as some respondents might be discouraged from taking part if the name of the survey included terms like ‘assault’, ‘sexual violence’, or ‘gender-based violence’.

Majority of countries have followed this recommendation and the title of the survey was translated as survey on health, safety or security and well-being or living conditions; quality of life or relationship survey. Only few countries (BG, SK) used gender-based violence in the title of the survey during data collection and explained that this decision was taken as no issue appeared during testing the survey using the word “violence”, or the word "violence" was used in order to avoid misunderstanding regarding the aim of the survey and to reduce non-response due to the fact that respondents were not aware of the real theme of the survey.

However, the pilot survey results indicate that respondents understood the rationale for the choice of neutral survey name once they had been given an explanation, and agreed that it was right. Due to the sensitivity of the topic, the participating countries were strongly encouraged to include experts on violence against women and/or gender-based violence as well as psychologists and psychotherapists in every step of the survey - from the preparation, through the field work to the data dissemination.

Majority of countries included experts on the topic in the project team: gender statisticians, gender-based violence or violence against women researchers, policy experts, psychologists, social workers, experts working on victim support or NGOs, experts on victimization surveys. External experts were included in the preparation of the survey, training of the interviewers and in order to provide support to the interviewers.

Few countries (MT, FI) established the focus group or expert group consisting of different experts in the field and providing the support to the survey during all phases.

BackgroundIntimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been reported to be a determinant of women's risk for HIV. We examined the relationship between women's self-reported experiences of IPV in their most recent relationship and their laboratory-confirmed HIV serostatus in ten low- to middle-income countries.Methodology/Principal FindingsData for the study came from the most recent Demographic and Health Surveys conducted in Dominican Republic, Haiti, India, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Zambia and Zimbabwe. Each survey population was a cross-sectional sample of women aged 15–49 years. Information on IPV was obtained by a face-to-face interview with the mother with an 81.1% response rate; information on HIV serostatus was obtained from blood samples with an 85.3% response rate. Demographic and socioeconomic variables were considered as potentially confounding covariates. Logistic regression models accounting for multi-stage survey design were estimated individually for each country and as a pooled total with country fixed effects (n = 60,114). Country-specific adjusted odds ratios (OR) for physical or sexual IPV compared to neither ranged from 0.45 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23–0.90] in Haiti to 1.35 [95% CI: 0.95–1.90] in India; the pooled association was 1.03 [95% CI: 0.94–1.13]. Country-specific adjusted ORs for physical and sexual IPV compared to no sexual IPV ranged from 0.41 [95% CI: 0.12–1.36] in Haiti to 1.41 [95% CI: 0.26–7.77] in Mali; the pooled association was 1.05 [95% CI: 0.90–1.22].ConclusionsIPV and HIV were not found to be consistently associated amongst ever-married women in national population samples in these lower income countries, suggesting that IPV is not consistently associated with HIV prevalence worldwide. More research is needed to understand the circumstances in which IPV and HIV are and are not associated with one another.

In late March of 2020, many governments in Latin America imposed lockdowns in order to avoid the further spread of the virus SARS-CoV-2. As a result of the isolation, a steep rise of gender violence and family abuse cases was identified in several countries in the region. For instance, Mexico's domestic violence reports increased 25 percent in March 2020, in comparison to the same month of the previous year. In Argentina, a hotline for sexual violence victims received more than two thirds more phone calls in April 2020, compared to a year earlier. Argentina is one of the Latin American countries with the highest number of femicide victims.

Domestic Abuse Geofence Alert Programs Market Outlook

According to our latest research, the Global Domestic Abuse Geofence Alert Programs market size was valued at $1.2 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach $4.3 billion by 2033, expanding at a robust CAGR of 15.8% during 2024–2033. This remarkable growth trajectory is primarily driven by the increasing integration of advanced geolocation technologies and artificial intelligence within public safety frameworks, coupled with a global surge in legislative and policy initiatives aimed at combating domestic abuse. As awareness of domestic violence issues rises, both government and non-governmental organizations are rapidly adopting geofence alert programs to provide real-time protection and intervention for at-risk individuals, thereby fueling market expansion across multiple sectors and regions.

Regional Outlook

North America currently holds the largest share of the Domestic Abuse Geofence Alert Programs market, accounting for over 38% of the global value in 2024. This dominance is attributed to the region’s mature technological infrastructure, widespread adoption of digital safety solutions, and proactive public safety policies. The United States, in particular, has witnessed significant investments in software and hardware for geofencing applications, driven by strong collaboration between law enforcement, healthcare providers, and social services. Furthermore, ongoing government funding and the presence of leading technology vendors have accelerated innovation and deployment rates, making North America a pivotal hub for market development.

Asia Pacific is emerging as the fastest-growing region, projected to register a CAGR of 19.2% through 2033. Several factors underpin this rapid expansion, including increased digitalization of public safety systems, rising awareness of domestic violence, and significant investments from both public and private sectors. Countries such as India, China, and Australia are actively piloting and scaling geofence alert programs, often supported by international NGOs and local government initiatives. The growing penetration of smartphones, coupled with the expansion of cloud-based deployment models, is making these solutions more accessible and affordable, thereby driving adoption across diverse urban and rural landscapes.

In contrast, emerging economies in Latin America and the Middle East & Africa face unique adoption challenges, such as limited digital infrastructure, varying levels of policy enforcement, and budgetary constraints. However, localized demand for domestic abuse prevention tools is gradually increasing, supported by targeted policy reforms and awareness campaigns. In these regions, NGOs and community organizations play a critical role in advocating for and implementing geofence alert programs, often adapting solutions to suit local cultural and regulatory contexts. While growth rates are currently moderate, the potential for future expansion remains significant as digital transformation initiatives gain momentum and international partnerships proliferate.

Report Scope

Schoenfeld residual test for checking the proportional hazard assumption for the intimate partner violence and its predicators among reproductive ever-married women in SSA.

Abstract

Violence against women (VAW), in its many forms and manifestations, and across all settings, is a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Around the world, many women experience violence regardless of age, class, race and ethnicity. Most of this violence is driven by the fact that they are women, and related to gender roles in society. Violence against women is predominately perpetrated by men, and most often by intimate partners. According to most recent global estimates, 35% of women aged 15 years or older globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence during their lifetime (Devries et al., 2013; WHO, 2013). Intimate partner violence is the leading cause of homicide in women globally (Stockl et al., 2013) and has many other major short- and long-term health consequences (WHO, 2013). The economic and social costs associated with VAW are significant, and global evidence shows that violence consistently undermines development efforts at various levels, affecting physical, human and social capital (WHO, 2005). In Cambodia, the state of research on violence against women points toward widespread experiences of violence across the country (CDHS, 2012; Fulu et al., 21013). Women of all cultures and classes are subjected to many forms of physical, psychological, sexual and economic violence. This includes, but is not limited to intimate partner violence (IPV), rape and sexual assault, sexual harassment, acid violence and trafficking (MoWA, 2008). The Royal Government of Cambodia (RGC) has made a strong commitment to addressing violence against women by introducing a number of legislative and policy reforms including domestic violence legislation and a national action plan. Cambodia has demonstrated its strong commitment to promoting gender equality and ending VAW by ratifying several core international human rights conventions. In addition, there is widespread recognition among Cambodian government leaders that having quality data on the prevalence and health and other consequences of different forms of VAW is essential to increase awareness, inform evidencebased programming and policies, including the NAPVAW, and to monitor progress in the implementations of such interventions. Between 2014-2015, to fill the identified knowledge gaps, the Royal Government of Cambodia with support from the World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Women conducted a national prevalence study using the WHO multicountry study methodology. This methodology was selected because it has been widely used and is known to produce reliable data, that can be used for cross-country comparisons, and it adheres to internationally recognized ethical and safety standards.

Specific Objectives: Among specific objectives, the following deserve special mention:

ESTIMATE THE PREVALENCE AND FREQUENCY of different forms of VAW: physical, sexual, emotional and economic violence against women by intimate partners, as well as sexual and physical violence by perpetrators other than partners (in this document also referred to as ‘nonpartners’) since the age of 15, and sexual violence before the age of 15;

DETERMINE THE ASSOCIATION of physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence with a range of health and other outcomes;

IDENTIFY FACTORS that may be associated with either reducing (protective factors) or increasing (risk factors) women’s risk of hysical and/or sexual intimate partner violence; DOCUMENT THE STRATEGIES and services that women use to cope with violence by an intimate partner.

INCREASE NATIONAL CAPACITY and collaboration among researchers and women’s organisations working on domestic violence;

INCREASE AWARENESS about and sensitivity to partner violence among researchers, policymakers and health care providers;

CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEVELOPMENT of a network of people committed to addressing

Geographic coverage

National

Analysis unit

• Households
• Individuals

Universe

All resident households in Cambodia

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

• The survey sample design was developed by the NIS in the Ministry of Planning. A multi-stage sampling strategy was used based on a sampling frame that took into consideration the 24 provinces in the country delineated into a total of 225 districts for a total of 14,172 "villages" or 28,701 enumeration areas (EAs) in the country. The sample is self-weighted at the household level.

• The results achieved on VAW 2015 sampling design is already completed and describes as follows: a.Two level of survey results will be produces as: first at National level and second sub-national (Urban and Rural) b.Survey methods of VAW 2015 were designed bases on the three- stage stratified cluster sampling. b1. First stage: selected the sample Enumeration area consisting of 200 sample EAs b2. Second stage: selected the sample households consisting of 4,000 households b3. Selected the sample Women consisting of 4,000 eligible women

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Cleaning operations

The questionnaire was programmed into electronic format using CAPI software, which allowed interviewers to enter the responses to questions directly into the electronic devises that were uploaded on a daily basis. Data entry was therefore not required. The software directly checked internal consistency, range and error checking, and skip patterns of the responses at the point of entering the answers during the interview. The uploaded files were aggregated at a central level and were immediately available for data analysis.

Response rate

Eligible woman response rate: 98% Household response rate: 99.5% Household refused: 0.5%

Sampling error estimates

Sample size calculations: Z (95% Confidence Interval), the value of 1.96 P = 30%. In many countries were data are available, lifetime intimate partner sexual violence often reaches 25-30% and lifetime intimate partner physical violence is 65-70%. In a normal distribution the highest variance for a factor would be at the 50% level (resulting in needing a very large sample) and the lowest variance would be at the extremes (needing the smallest sample). We compromise at 30% which is identical to assuming 70% so the resulting sample size is large, but not unmanageable. DEFF = 2. We have used this value for all the national surveys, to date. E = 0.02291. We calculate the sample size using margin of error 2.291%.

The sample size results are as follow: Confidence Level :1.96 Margin of Error (MOE): 0.02291 Baseline levels of the indicator: 0.3 Design effect (Deff): 2 Sample size (n) - Female: 3,074