To further the understanding of violence against women, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), jointly sponsored the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey. To provide a context in which to place women's experiences, the NVAW Survey sampled both women and men. Completed interviews were obtained from 8,000 women and 8,005 men who were 18 years of age or older residing in households throughout the United States. The female version of the survey was fielded from November 1995 to May 1996. The male version of the survey was fielded during February to May 1996. Spanish versions of both the male and female surveys were fielded from April to May 1996. Respondents to the NVAW Survey were queried about (1) their general fear of violence and the ways in which they managed their fears, (2) emotional abuse they had experienced by marital and cohabitating partners, (3) physical assault they had experienced as children by adult caretakers, (4) physical assault they had experienced as adults by any type of perpetrator, (5) forcible rape or stalking they had experienced by any type of perpetrator, and (6) incidents of threatened violence they had experienced by any type of perpetrator. Respondents disclosing victimization were asked detailed questions about the characteristics and consequences of victimization as they experienced it, including injuries sustained and use of medical services. Incidents were recorded that had occurred at any time during the respondent's lifetime and also those that occurred within the 12 months prior to the interview. Data were gathered on both male-to-female and female-to-male intimate partner victimization as well as abuse by same-sex partners. Due to the sensitive nature of the survey, female respondents were interviewed by female interviewers. In order to test for possible bias caused by the gender of the interviewers when speaking to men, a split sample was used so that half of the male respondents had female interviewers and the other half had male interviewers. The questionnaires contained 14 sections, each covering a different topic, as follows. Section A: Respondents' fears of different types of violence, and behaviors they had adopted to accommodate those fears. Section B: Respondent demographics and household characteristics. Section C: The number of current and past marital and opposite-sex and same-sex cohabitating relationships of the respondent. Section D: Characteristics of the respondent's current relationship and the demographics and other characteristics of their spouse and/or partner. Section E: Power, control, and emotional abuse by each spouse or partner. Sections F through I: Screening for incidents of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively. Sections J through M: Detailed information on each incident of rape, physical assault, stalking, and threat victimization, respectively, reported by the respondent for each type of perpetrator identified in the victimization screening section. Section N: Violence in the respondent's current relationship, including steps taken because of violence in the relationship and whether the violent behavior had stopped. The section concluded with items to assess if the respondent had symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder. Other variables in the data include interviewer gender, respondent gender, number of adult women and adult men in the household, number of different telephones in the household, and region code.

The dataset comprises responses from diverse individuals, addressing demographic factors (residence type, age, education level, family structure), monthly income, initial experience of torture, current abuse situation, marital duration, extramarital involvement, primary abuse location, stance on male torture legislation, abuse victimization status, among others. Collected through a survey consisting of 23 questions, predominantly offering binary responses, it encompasses quantitative data derived from individual male responses. The survey targeted 2000 residents from Bangladesh's 9 major cities, prioritizing professionals across sectors and ensuring representation of unemployed individuals, employees, and business owners.

This data set contains New York City Police Department provided felony assault count data for calendar years 2020 and 2021. The data includes counts of the number of intimate-partner felony assaults and the number of expected intimate-partner felony assaults by: race (American Indian, Asian, Black, Hispanic and White) and sex (male, female) for New York City, each borough (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island) and community district. The following defines felony assault: Felony assault requires that a victim suffer a physical injury and covers injuries caused either intentionally or recklessly and includes injuries caused by either a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. See New York Penal Law § § 120.05, 120.10. The expected number of felony assaults were calculated by taking the total number of actual felony assaults for a given geography (New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island) and proportioning them by demographic breakdown of the geographic area.

Domestic abuse numbers, prevalence, types and attitudes experienced by women and men aged between 16 and 59 years and 60 to 74 years, based upon annual findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales.

The purpose of the study was to better understand the factors associated with police decisions to make an arrest or not in cases of heterosexual partner violence and how these decisions vary across jurisdictions. The study utilized data from three large national datasets: the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for the year 2003, the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) for the years 2000 and 2003, and the United States Department of Health and Human Services Area Resource File (ARF) for the year 2003. Researchers also developed a database of domestic violence state arrest laws including arrest type (mandatory, discretionary, or preferred) and primary aggressor statutes. Next, the research team merged these four databases into one, with incident being the unit of analysis. As a further step, the research team conducted spatial analysis to examine the impact of spatial autocorrelation in arrest decisions by police organizations on the results of statistical analyses. The dependent variable for this study was arrest outcome, defined as no arrest, single male arrest, single female arrest, and dual arrest for an act of violence against an intimate partner. The primary independent variables were divided into three categories: incident factors, police organizational factors, and community factors.

This study examines the prevalence of violence against American Indian and Alaska Native women and men, using a large nationally representative sample from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). More specifically, it provides estimates of sexual violence, physical violence by intimate partners, stalking, and psychological aggression by intimate partners. It also provides estimates of interracial and intraracial victimizations and briefly examines the impact of violence. This study is based on two of the NISVS samples that were included in the 2010 data collection effort --the general population sample and the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample. This American Indian and Alaska Native oversample was collected from geographical areas (telephone exchanges) where at least 50% of the population identifies themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native. To increase the generalizability of the American Indian and Alaska Native sample (and to add interviews conducted by cell phone), a new "combined" sample was created by including (a) all respondents in the American Indian and Alaska Native oversample and (b) 677 respondents in the general population sample who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native. By combining these samples, a new sample was obtained that is large enough to produce reliable and valid estimates for all women and men in the United States who identify themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native. For a more exact discussion of the sample, see the NIJ Technical Report. The combined sample includes 2,473 women and 1,505 men who identified themselves as American Indian or Alaska Native. Results from the combined American Indian and Alaska Native sample were compared to results from the sample of respondents in the general population sample who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White alone. The comparison sample includes 7,646 women and 6,050 men who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White alone. There are 5 data files included with this study. Dataset 1 (General Population Raw Data) contains 18,957 cases and 26,114 variables. Dataset 2 (American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) Oversample Raw Data) contains 3,612 cases and 22,932 variables. Dataset 3 (Respondent-level Data) contains 21,378 cases and 493 variables. Dataset 4 (Perpetrator-level Data) contains 51,535 cases and 446 variables. Dataset 5 (Weights File) contains 3,978 cases and 9 variables.

This data set contains New York City Police Department provided domestic violence incident data for calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022. In addition, ENDGBV obtained through Open Data the number of shooting incidents for calendar years 2020, 2021 and 2022. The data includes counts of the number of domestic violence incidents, shooting incidents and the number of expected domestic violence incidents and shooting incidents by: race (American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian/Pacific Islander, Black, and White) and sex (male, female) for New York City, each borough (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island). It also provides the count and rate of domestic violence and shooting incidents by police precinct. The expected number of domestic violence incidents and shooting incidents were calculated by taking the total number of actual domestic violence and shooting incidents for a given geography (New York City, the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens and Staten Island) and proportioning them by demographic breakdown of the geographic area.

Since 1976, the United States has witnessed a steady and precipitous decline in intimate partner homicides. This study builds on the work of Dugan et al. (1999, 2000) and Browne and Williams (1989) by examining, in greater detail, the relationship between intimate partner homicide and gender, race, criminal justice system response, and domestic violence services. Specifically, the study examines the net effect of criminal justice system response and federally-funded domestic violence shelters on victimization of white, African American, and Hispanic males and females. This study used aggregated data from the 58 counties in California from 1987 to 2000. Homicide data were gathered by the State of California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Data on domestic violence resources were obtained from the Governor's Office of Criminal Justice Planning, Domestic Violence Branch, in the form of detailed reports from domestic violence shelters in the state. Based on these records, the researchers computed the number of federally-funded shelter-based organizations in a given county over time. Data on criminal justice responses at the county level were gathered from the State of California Department of Justice, Criminal Justice Statistics Center. These data included domestic violence arrests and any convictions and incarceration that followed those arrests. The researchers disaggregated these criminal justice system measures by race and gender. In order to account for population differences and changes over time, rates were computed per 100,000 adults (age 18 and older).

This project provided the first large-scale examination of the police response to intimate partner violence and of the practice known as "dual arrest." The objectives of the project were: (1) to describe the prevalence and context of dual arrest in the United States, (2) to explain the variance in dual arrest rates throughout the United States, (3) to describe dual arrest within the full range of the police response to intimate partner violence, (4) to analyze the factors associated with no arrest, single arrest, and dual arrest, (5) to examine the reasons why women are arrested in intimate partner cases, and (6) to describe how the criminal justice system treats women who have been arrested for domestic violence. Data for the project were collected in two phases. In Phase I, researchers examined all assault and intimidation cases in the year 2000 National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) database (NATIONAL INCIDENT-BASED REPORTING SYSTEM, 2000 [ICPSR 3449]) to investigate the extent to which dual arrest is occurring nationwide, the relationship between incident and offender characteristics, and the effect of state laws on police handling of these cases for all relationship types. Because the NIBRS dataset contained a limited number of incident-specific variables that helped explain divergent arrest practices, in Phase II, researchers collected more detailed information on a subset of NIBRS cases from 25 police departments of varying sizes across four states. This phase of the study was restricted to intimate partner and other domestic violence cases. Additional data were collected for these cases to evaluate court case outcomes and subsequent re-offending. This phase also included an assessment of how closely department policy reflected state law in a larger sample of agencies within five states. The data in Part 1 (Phase I Data) contain 577,862 records from the NIBRS. This includes information related to domestic violence incidents such as the most serious offense against the victim, the most serious victim injury, the assault type, date of incident, and the counts of offenses, offenders, victims, and arrests for the incident. The data also include information related to the parties involved in the incident including demographics for the victim(s) and arrestee(s) and the relationship between victim(s) and arrestee(s). There is also information related to the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred such as population, urban/rural classification, and whether the jurisdiction is located in a metropolitan area. There are also variables pertaining to whether a weapon was used, the date of arrest, and the type of arrest. Also included are variables regarding the police department such as the number of male and female police officers and civilians employed. The data in Part 2 (Phase II Data) contain 4,388 cases and include all of the same variables as those in Part 1. In addition to these variables, there are variables such as whether the offender was on the scene when the police arrived, who reported the incident, the exact nature of injuries suffered by the involved parties, victim and offender substance use, offender demeanor, and presence of children. Also included are variables related to the number of people including police and civilians who were on the scene, the number of people who were questioned, whether there were warrants for the victim(s) or offender(s), whether citations were issued, whether arrests were made, whether any cases were prosecuted, the number of charges filed and against whom, and the sentences for prosecuted cases that resulted in conviction. The data in Part 3 (Police Department Policy Data) contain 282 cases and include variables regarding whether the department had a domestic violence policy, what the department's arrest policy was, whether a police report needed to be made, whether the policy addressed mutual violence, whether the policy instructed how to determine the primary aggressor, and what factors were taken into account in making a decision to arrest. There is also information related to the proportion of arrests involving intimate partners, the proportion of arrests involving other domestics, the proportion of arrests involving acquaintances, and the proportion of arrests involving strangers.

Separations and men's violence against women is a study that aims to increase knowledge about the connection between men's violence against women and separations. The study is a thesis at the University of Gothenburg and has been carried out with financial support from the Crime Victims Fund. The study is based on questionnaires collected from over 350 women who have separated or gone through a divorce from a heterosexual relationship. In order to get in touch with these women, the researcher has worked together with various social agencies that women who have been subjected to separation violence can come into contact with; police, women's shelters, crime victim shelters, social services and family law agencies. Questionnaires have also been sent directly to women in the Gothenburg area who have gone through a divorce.

The study includes two questionnaires. Questionnaire 2 was sent after 6 months to those women who expressed interest in participating further via Questionnaire 1. The questionnaires are designed to cover different periods of the relationship and separation. They include questions about the man's behavior in certain situations, for example during discussions about joint children or assets, how conflicts have been handled, physical, psychological and sexual violence and the relationship as a whole.

The results of the study show that 60 percent of the women respondents have at some point been subjected to physical violence by the man they separated from. One purpose of the study is to investigate whether it is possible to predict the risk of violence after a separation. The study shows that the risk assessment model, to assess how great the risk is that the woman will be subjected to violence even after the separation, which is used by staff at women's shelters and crime victim shelters, is preferable to the police's way of working. It also shows that negotiations in family law are affected if the man has used violence. It often turns out that the woman lowers her demands, for example regarding custody of joint children, if the man has used violence against her.

Purpose: To investigate the extent of men's violence against women in connection with and after separations, separation violence, in order to be able to say something about the risk of violence that women who are considering leaving a heterosexual relationship face.

This data base was used for a study that examines the scope and characteristics of male-to-female intimate partner violence in southern rural Chiapas, Mexico, and its association with depression and anxiety symptoms, highlighting the role of partner controlling behaviors.Participants were selected by random sampling. One-hundred and twenty eight women >15 years participated. Data was obtained through an adapted version of the National Survey of the Dynamics of Household Relationships (ENDIREH) intimate partner violence scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire – 9 for depression symptoms and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder – 7 for anxiety symptoms. The study design followed the WHO “Ethic and Safety Recommendations for conducting research on Domestic Violence Against Women”. The protocol received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board of the Harvard Medical School Office of Human Research Administration and the Chiapas Health Institute.Frequency of physical, sexual and controlling violent events was assessed as follows: never happened, happened once, happened sometimes, happened many times. These categories were provided in the survey and are contingent upon each respondent’s consideration. Severity of IPV (physical and sexual) was categorized as low, moderate or severe. These categories were created through a combination of the frequency of violent events and the severity of events: being kicked, tied-up, choked, attacked with a machete/knife and attacked with a gun where considered severe regardless of frequency; being pushed, pulled by the hair, slapped, hit, or have objects thrown at her where defined as follows: a) low severity when the event(s) occurred once, b) moderate severity when events happened sometimes, and c) high severity when events happened many times. Similarly, being coerced to have sex, or forced to do specific sexual activities while having sex were categorized as follows: a) low severity if it happened once, b) moderate severity if it happened sometimes, and c) severe if it happened many times. In the case of having been forced to have sex through physical force, it was considered a) moderate severity when it happened once, and b) severe when it happened more than once. IPV was labeled as low, moderate or severe based on the physical or sexual violence item that was labeled most severe for each woman.Fourteen control tactics were asked to measure CB: 1) not permitting her to work outside of home; 2) taking away her property, belongings or money; 3) not permitting her to visit her family; 4) not providing with money for basic household needs when he did have; 5) humiliating, shaming or insulting her; 6) falsely accusing her of being unfaithful; 7) frightening her or making her feel afraid of him; 8) locking her in; 9) spying or monitoring her; 10) threatening her with throwing her out of the house; 11) putting the children against her; 12) threatening her with taking the children away from her; 13) threatening her with abandoning her; 14) threatening her with killing her. Partner CB level was categorized as: a) high with more than four control tactics were reported (highest tercile), b) moderate with one to four control tactics were reported, and c) no control when no control tactics reported. High-control IPV (HC-IPV) and moderate-control IPV (MC-IPV) categories were created to reflect Johnson’s suggested categories of Intimate Terrorism and Situational Couple Violence, respectively. IPV was labeled as HC-IPV whenever a) control was high irrespective of the severity of physical or sexual violence, and b) control was moderate and severity of physical or sexual violence was high. IPV was labeled as MC-IPV when a) severity was low, and control was none or moderate, b) when severity was moderate and control none or moderate, and c) when physical or sexual violence was severe and no control tactics were reported.

This study focused on an evaluation of EVOLVE, a newly developed 26-week, 52-session skill building, culturally competent, psycho-educational curriculum-based intervention for male domestic violence offenders with female victims. The curriculum was implemented in three large urban courts that have specialized domestic violence court sessions, judicial monitoring, specialized court staff throughout the judicial process, enhanced advocacy for victims, a collaborative team approach to case processing, and collaboration with networks of involved community service providers. The comparison site (called Explore), also a large urban court, had some specialized court staff and enhanced victim advocacy, as well. It was selected as the comparison because of these court features, the use of a more traditional 26-week intervention (that met just once each week), its high volume, and the high rate of involvement of men of color, which was similar to rates found at the EVOLVE sites at the time the evaluation was proposed. The data file contains 545 cases and 872 variables.

The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) is an ongoing nationally representative survey that assesses experiences of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence among adult women and men in the United States and for each individual state. The survey focused exclusively on violence and collects information about Sexual violence by any perpetrator, including information related to rape, being made to penetrate someone else, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and non-contact unwanted sexual experiences Stalking, including the use of technologies such as text messages, emails, monitoring devices (e.g., cameras and GPS, or global positioning system devices), by perpetrators known and unknown to the victim Physical violence by an intimate partner Psychological aggression by an intimate partner, including information on expressive forms of aggression and coercive control Control of reproductive or sexual health by an intimate partner In addition to collecting lifetime and 12 month prevalence data on sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence, the survey collects information on the age at the time of the first victimization, demographic characteristics of respondents, demographic characteristics of perpetrators (age, sex, race/ethnicity) and detailed information about the context in which these types of violence occur. The primary objectives of the survey are to describe the prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence in the United States; who is most likely to experience these forms of violence; the context in which sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence are experienced; and the consequences and impacts of these forms of violence. The data file contains 18,957 cases and 26,114 variables.

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.

The study used quantitative methods to investigate the effects of victim gender, victim sexuality, and type of violence on victim blaming scores among social workers.This experiment employed a 2x2x2 factor independent-measures design as there were three independent variables, each with two levels: victim gender (male/female), victim sexuality (heterosexual/homosexual), and type of violence (psychological/physical). Participants were randomly allocated into one of the eight conditions.80 participants took part.

This study was undertaken to evaluate the impact of the Arrest Policies Program, funded by the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO), on criminal justice system changes and offender accountability, and victim safety and well-being. Through convenience sampling, six project sites were chosen to participate in the study. Part 1, Case Tracking Data, contains quantitative data collected from criminal justice agencies on arrests, prosecution filings, criminal case disposition, convictions, and sentences imposed for intimate partner violence cases involving a male offender and female offender. Data for Part 2, Victim Interview Data, were collected from in-depth personal interviews with domestic violence victims/survivors (1) to learn more about victim experiences with and perceptions of the criminal justice response, and (2) to obtain victim perceptions about how the arrest and/or prosecution of their batterers affected their safety and well-being. The survey instrument covered a wide range of topics including severity and history of domestic violence, social support networks, perceptions of police response, satisfaction with the criminal justice process and the sentence, experiences in court, and satisfaction with prosecutors, victim services provider advocates, and probation officers.

The COVID-19 pandemic has impacts beyond people’s health that affect different aspects of day-to-day life. All people will be impacted in some way and must adapt to the pandemic, however men and women – or different groups of men and women – will not all be affected in the same ways. This is due to women and men play different roles and have different responsibilities in their homes and communities.

Women and girls are disproportionately impacted by crises. Women and girls are likely to: face even higher rates of domestic violence and sexual abuse; are more vulnerable to economic hardship as income generation activities women perform are disrupted; have increased unpaid in the household due to the closure of schools and have reduced access to essential health services. It is important to keep track of how all the different segments of the population are being affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and how mitigation measures are affecting people’s lives. This set of indicators has been developed to assist with that purpose.

COVID-19 response strategies that are gender responsive and socially inclusive to address the needs of women, youth, people with disabilities and other segments of the population who are more vulnerable.

The list of indicators is not mandatory nor exhaustive but, hopefully, helpful for people needing to track COVID-19 responses and impacts. The indicators cover seven areas: 1. Health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2. Participation of women, youth, and people with disability in decision making. 3. Sexual and reproductive health. 4. Domestic violence. 5. Economic security. 6. Food security. 7. Unpaid care work.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the assistance provided to women victims of sexual violence and their participation in the follow-up treatment after the traumatic event, presenting a sociodemographic profile, gynecological background, and circumstances of the event, and reporting the results, acceptance, and side effects of prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and pregnancy. Methods A retrospective cohort study comprising the period between 2007 and 2016. All women receiving medical care and clinical follow-up after a severe episode of sexual violence were included. Records of domestic violence, male victims, children, and adolescents who reported consensual sexual activity were excluded. The present study included descriptive statistics as frequencies and percentages. Results A total of 867medical records were reviewed and 444 cases of sexual violence were included. The age of the victims ranged from10 to 77 years old, most of them selfdeclared white, with between 4 and 8 years of education, and denying having a sexual partner. Sexual violence occurred predominantly at night, on public thoroughfare, being committed by an unknown offender. Most victims were assisted at the referral service center within 72 hours after the violence, enabling the recommended prophylaxis. There was high acceptance of antiretroviral therapy (ART), although half of the users reported side effects. Seroconversion to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or to hepatitis B virus (HBV) was not detected in women undergoing prophylaxis. Conclusion In the present cohort, the profile of victims of sexual violence was loweducated, young, white women. The traumatic event occurred predominantly at night, on public thoroughfare, being committed by an unknown offender. Assistance within the first 72 hours after sexual violence enables the healthcare center to provide prophylactic interventions against STIs and unwanted pregnancies.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. This study sought to: Identify the prevalence of intimate partner violence, stalking and sexual violence among non-college-attending emerging adults. Explore the use of formal and informal help seeking and formal services among these victims. The analysis in this study focused on non-college-attending emerging adults, with particular concern for the effect of their positive and negative encounters with sources of support - both in their immediate needs as well as future decisions to utilize victim services. This project also compared male and female victims because of variations in their respective use of services. To address these research concerns, this project utilizes the data in the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (ICPSR #36140). There are no data files available with this study. Only syntax files used by the researchers are provided.

IntroductionDomestic violence and abuse (DVA) are prevalent among persons with severe mental illness (SMI), being involved as victim, perpetrator, or both.AimsTo assess rates of DVA victimization and perpetration in patients with SMI. We also aimed to assess whether DVA victimization was associated with DVA perpetration, and whether this was mediated by dispositional anger in patients with SMI. Lastly, we aimed to examine whether gender moderated the associations between DVA victimization and perpetration.MethodsWe conducted a nation-wide survey on victimization in patients with SMI. In 942 patients DVA perpetration of physical assault and victimization of physical assault, sexual coercion or psychological aggression over the past year were assessed using the revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Anger was assessed using the dispositional anger reactions scale. Correlation and mediation analyses were conducted, followed by a moderated mediation to assess whether effects of anger differed between men and women.ResultsThe prevalence rate of perpetration of physical assault was 22%, for victimization 27% and 52% for both. We found a strong positive correlation between perpetrated physical assault and victimization of mild physical assault and between both the perpetration and victimization of severe physical assault. Anger mediated the link between being a victim of psychological aggression and being a perpetrator of DVA. Women were more likely to perpetrate violence if they were victims of mild physical assault compared to men. Other moderation effects by gender were not observed.Conclusion and implicationsThis study reveals persistent high DVA rates among patients with SMI. Overall, anger had no mediating effect on the association between victimization and perpetration of violence, except for psychological aggression and perpetration of DVA. This study emphasizes the importance of routine violence discussions in SMI care while taking context into account. However, further research on underlying mechanisms and interventions to improve discussions and care for victims and/or perpetrators of DVA is necessary.