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.

Financial inclusion is an area of growing global interest in women’s empowerment policy and programming. While increased economic autonomy may be expected to reduce the prevalence of intimate partner violence, the mechanisms and contexts through which this relationship manifests are not well understood. This analysis aims to assess the relationship between women’s financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence using nationally-representative data from 112 countries worldwide. Levels of both financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence varied substantially across countries (ranging from 2–100%, and 1–46%, respectively), and across regions. In multivariate global analyses, increased levels of women’s financial inclusion were associated with lower levels of recent intimate partner violence after accounting for asset-based enablers of economic autonomy and gender norms; this relationship was lost upon the inclusion of measures of national context (i.e., development and fragility). These results underscore that the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence is complex, follows many pathways, and is affected by context. In low and middle income countries, asset-based enablers of economic autonomy, gender norms and national context explained much of the relationship between financial inclusion and recent intimate partner violence. In those low and middle income countries with high levels of controlling behavior by male spouses, financial inclusion was associated with higher levels of recent intimate partner violence. These findings further suggest that initiatives that aim to prevent intimate partner violence by way of increased economic autonomy may be ineffective in the absence of broader social change and support, and indeed, as seen in countries with higher levels of men’s controlling behavior, backlash may increase the risk of violence. Efforts to improve women’s financial inclusion need to recognize that its relationship with intimate partner violence is complex, and that it requires an enabling environment supportive of women’s rights and autonomy.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

How does donor domestic ideology and partisan politics shape the lives of people in aid-dependent countries? In this paper, we study the impact of the United States Mexico City Policy, which—when in place—prohibits the disbursement of United States aid funds to foreign Non-Governmental Organizations that provide information or services related to abortion care. Since its 1984 inception, every Democratic president has rescinded it, while every Republican has reinstated it. While previous global public health studies reveal how the Mexico City Policy has actually increased unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortion rates, we argue that these unintended consequences go further than previously understood. We argue that when women lose access to abortion care, they are more likely to lose their lives and suffer life-changing injuries due to violence by their partners. Using global data on United States aid and the health burden caused by intimate partner violence against women in up to 204 countries and territories between 1993 and 2019, we show that the burden of deaths and disability attributed to intimate partner violence increases by approximately 16 percent when the Mexico City Policy is in place.

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.

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

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.

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

Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female data was reported at 0.874 Ratio in 2014. This records a decrease from the previous number of 0.941 Ratio for 2013. Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female data is updated yearly, averaging 0.705 Ratio from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2014, with 15 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 0.941 Ratio in 2013 and a record low of 0.466 Ratio in 2001. Portugal PT: Intentional Homicides: Female: per 100,000 Female 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. Intentional homicides, female are estimates of unlawful female homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.; ; UN Office on Drugs and Crime's International Homicide Statistics database.; ;

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