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.

Introduction

Domestic Violence Statistics: Domestic violence is a serious and widespread issue, impacting millions of lives across the globe. Unfortunately, women across the world are still going through a tough situation due to such domestic abuse or violence, and still, even today, many women fail to report the incident.

This article includes all effective recent records of domestic violence occurrences in the U.S. and worldwide, types of violence, victim shares by countries, etc. All statistical analyses will help you effectively understand the prevalence and impact of domestic violence on communities. Here's a look at some key statistics that paint a concerning picture.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In 2022, an estimated ***** femicides were reported in ******, making it the European country with the highest number of such crimes. Femicides, defined as the gender-based killing of women and girls, represent the most extreme form of violence against women. That same year, Turkey, and the United Kingdom ranked second and third, with *** and *** cases, respectively.

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

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.

BackgroundUnderstanding the past-year prevalence of male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) and risk factors is essential for building evidence-based prevention and monitoring progress to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 5.2, but so far, population-based research on this remains very limited. The objective of this study is to compare the population prevalence rates of past-year male-perpetrated IPV and nonpartner rape from women’s and men’s reports across 4 countries in Asia and the Pacific. A further objective is to describe the risk factors associated with women’s experience of past-year physical or sexual IPV from women’s reports and factors driving women’s past-year experience of partner violence.Methods and findingsThis paper presents findings from the United Nations Multi-country Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. In the course of this study, in population-based cross-sectional surveys, 5,206 men and 3,106 women aged 18–49 years were interviewed from 4 countries: Cambodia, China, Papua New Guinea (PNG), and Sri Lanka. To measure risk factors, we use logistic regression and structural equation modelling to show pathways and mediators. The analysis was not based on a written plan, and following a reviewer’s comments, some material was moved to supplementary files and the regression was performed without variable elimination. Men reported more lifetime perpetration of IPV (physical or sexual IPV range 32.5%–80%) than women did experience (physical or sexual IPV range 27.5%–67.4%), but women’s reports of past-year experience (physical or sexual IPV range 8.2%–32.1%) were not very clearly different from men’s (physical or sexual IPV range 10.1%–34.0%). Women reported much more emotional/economic abuse (past-year ranges 1.4%–5.7% for men and 4.1%–27.7% for women). Reports of nonpartner rape were similar for men (range 0.8%–1.9% in the past year) and women (range 0.4%–2.3% in past year), except in Bougainville, where they were higher for men (11.7% versus 5.7%). The risk factor modelling shows 4 groups of variables to be important in experience of past-year sexual and/or physical IPV: (1) poverty, (2) all childhood trauma, (3) quarrelling and women’s limited control in relationships, and (4) partner factors (substance abuse, unemployment, and infidelity). The population attributable fraction (PAF) was largest for quarrelling often, but the second greatest PAF was for the group related to exposure to violence in childhood. The relationship control variable group had the third highest PAF, followed by other partner factors. Currently married women were also more at risk. In the structural model, a resilience pathway showed less poverty, higher education, and more gender-equitable ideas were connected and conveyed protection from IPV. These are all amenable risk factors. This research was cross-sectional, so we cannot be sure of the temporal sequence of exposure, but the outcome being a past-year measure to some extent mitigates this problem.ConclusionsPast-year IPV indicators based on women’s reported experience that were developed to track SDG 5 are probably reasonably reliable but will not always give the same prevalence as may be reported by men. Report validity requires further research. Interviews with men to track past-year nonpartner rape perpetration are feasible and important. The findings suggest a range of factors are associated with past-year physical and/or sexual IPV exposure; of particular interest is the resilience pathway suggested by the structural model, which is highly amenable to intervention and explains why combining economic empowerment of women and gender empowerment/relationship skills training has been successful. This study provides additional rationale for scaling up violence prevention interventions that combine economic and gender empowerment/relationship skills building of women, as well as the value of investing in girls’ education with a view to long-term violence reduction.

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 2022, an estimated *** femicides were reported across European countries. Femicide, which refers to the gender-related killing of women and girls, represents the most extreme cases of violence against women. In this year there were estimated to have been *** femicides in Italy, *** in France, *** in Germany and ** in Spain.

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

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.

Descriptive statistics of recent intimate partner violence, financial inclusion and related covariates.

While the COVID-19 pandemic forced millions of people to stay home and minimize their social contacts, newspaper reports worldwide raised concerns as they reported an increasing rate of intimate partner violence (IPV). One link of the measures enforced to control the pandemic to IPV might be a possible side effect of those measures, namely social and geographical isolation. As there was no scientific data investigating the association of IPV and social and geographical isolation in the context of epidemics or pandemics at the time of conducting this rapid review, we aimed at investigating a broader range of contexts of social as well as geographical isolation and its association with IPV to draw conclusions regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. We searched Embase, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (core collection). A research strategy was developed and observational studies were included if they considered men and/or women, estimates of social and geographical isolation, and IPV as a primary outcome. Of the 526 identified studies, 11 were included in this review. The included studies involved 15,695 women and were conducted in the USA, Sweden, Ethiopia, Egypt, Spain, and Turkey. Indicators of social isolation such as lack of social, emotional, or informational support or the frequency and quality of social contacts were narratively assessed. Geographical isolation was primarily assessed by physical distance to the next town or support service. Both social and geographic isolation were found to be associated with an increased risk of IPV. Recommendations made by the individual studies include the following: (a) improving access to social networks outside the victims' own group, (b) improving their economic circumstances, (c) asserting the responsibility for those in contact with the victims, and (d) increasing the focus on access to preventive services and programs need to be taken into account. Therefore, considering the particular infrastructure and legislation of the countries affected by the pandemic, policies need to ensure constant access to shelters and other help services and increase awareness for IPV in the society. In addition, future studies are warranted to assess prevalence rates and risk factors of IPV during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Portugal PT: Proportion of Women Subjected to Physical and/or Sexual Violence in the Last 12 Months: % of Women Aged 15-49 data was reported at 6.000 % in 2012. Portugal PT: Proportion of Women Subjected to Physical and/or Sexual Violence in the Last 12 Months: % of Women Aged 15-49 data is updated yearly, averaging 6.000 % from Dec 2012 (Median) to 2012, with 1 observations. Portugal PT: Proportion of Women Subjected to Physical and/or Sexual Violence in the Last 12 Months: % of Women Aged 15-49 data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Portugal – Table PT.World Bank: Health Statistics. Proportion of women subjected to physical and/or sexual violence in the last 12 months is the percentage of ever partnered women age 15-49 who are subjected to physical violence, sexual violence or both by a current or former intimate partner in the last 12 months.; ; United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD); Weighted Average;

In France, the number of victims of homicides related to domestic violence amounted to 119 in 2023. Among these crimes, around 80 percent were committed against women. In addition, it appears that the women most affected that year were those aged between 40 and 49 year old.

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregnancy (TOP) are global health concerns, but their interaction is undetermined. The aim of this study was to determine whether there is an association between IPV and TOP.Methods and FindingsA systematic review based on a search of Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Ovid Maternity and Infant Care from each database's inception to 21 September 2013 for peer-reviewed articles of any design and language found 74 studies regarding women who had undergone TOP and had experienced at least one domain (physical, sexual, or emotional) of IPV. Prevalence of IPV and association between IPV and TOP were meta-analysed. Sample sizes ranged from eight to 33,385 participants. Worldwide, rates of IPV in the preceding year in women undergoing TOP ranged from 2.5% to 30%. Lifetime prevalence by meta-analysis was shown to be 24.9% (95% CI 19.9% to 30.6%); heterogeneity was high (I2>90%), and variation was not explained by study design, quality, or size, or country gross national income per capita. IPV, including history of rape, sexual assault, contraceptive sabotage, and coerced decision-making, was associated with TOP, and with repeat TOPs. By meta-analysis, partner not knowing about the TOP was shown to be significantly associated with IPV (pooled odds ratio 2.97, 95% CI 2.39 to 3.69). Women in violent relationships were more likely to have concealed the TOP from their partner than those who were not. Demographic factors including age, ethnicity, education, marital status, income, employment, and drug and alcohol use showed no strong or consistent mediating effect. Few long-term outcomes were studied. Women welcomed the opportunity to disclose IPV and be offered help. Limitations include study heterogeneity, potential underreporting of both IPV and TOP in primary data sources, and inherent difficulties in validation.ConclusionsIPV is associated with TOP. Novel public health approaches are required to prevent IPV. TOP services provide an opportune health-based setting to design and test interventions.Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary