Journals / Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2

Evaluation of domestic physical violence in a male sample in a psychiatric outpatient clinic: a controlled study

Pages
180–189
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When cross-sectionally evaluated, the results of the study show that the EPVC increases the burden of psychiatric comorbidity and SPV

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to determine spousal physical violence (SPV), physical abuse during childhood (exposure [EPVC], witnessing parental violence [WPVC]), the frequency of physical violence against their own child (PVAC) and the relationship between them in a male sample.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Method: In this study, data of psychiatric outpatients admitted to the psychiatry outpatient clinic of Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital consecutively (n=80) and a control group (n=40) who did not meet the psychiatric diagnostic criteria were compared.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When cross-sectionally evaluated, the results of the study show that the EPVC increases the burden of psychiatric comorbidity and SPV
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this study is to determine spousal physical violence (SPV), physical abuse during childhood (exposure [EPVC], witnessing parental violence [WPVC]), the frequency of physical violence against their own child (PVAC) and the relationship between them in a male sample. Also it is aimed to determine the contributing sociodemographic characteristics, to assess the burden of psychiatric morbidity, and to discuss its relationship with SPV. Method: In this study, data of psychiatric outpatients admitted to the psychiatry outpatient clinic of Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital consecutively (n=80) and a control group (n=40) who did not meet the psychiatric diagnostic criteria were compared. SCID-I (Structured Clinical Interview Form for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders) and Clinical Interview Form I-II for Domestic Violence were administered to both groups. Results: Although there was no statistically significant difference between the groups, high rates of SPV were detected in both (71.3% vs. 60%, p=0.215). In the group with a psychiatric diagnosis, EPVC was significantly higher (87.5% vs. 72.5%, p=0.041). On the other hand, there was no significant difference in the rates of WPVC (61.3% vs. 47.5%, p=0.152) and PVAC (76.1% versus 57.6%, p=0.057). In multivariate logistic regression model, a significant predictive factor of SPV was determined as EPVC (Exp[B]: 5.071 95% Cl: 1.092-23.549). There was no significant difference between the violence rates of patients with and without specific psychiatric diagnoses. Conclusion: This study conducted with an all-male sample shows that domestic violence is common in both psychiatric diagnoses and control groups. When cross-sectionally evaluated, the results of the study show that the EPVC increases the burden of psychiatric comorbidity and SPV

🔖

Cite This Article

KARABULUT, V., ÖZÇELİK, B., KARAMUSTAFALIOĞLU, O. (2020). Evaluation of domestic physical violence in a male sample in a psychiatric outpatient clinic: a controlled study. Düşünen Adam - Psikiyatri ve Nörolojik Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 33 - Sayı: 2, 180–189. https://ajindex.com/articles/150625

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. World Health Organization & Pan American Health Organization. Understanding and Addressing Violence Against Women: Intimate Partner Violence. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2012
  2. Mitchell L. Domestic violence in Australia: An overview of the issues. Canberra: Parliament of Australia, 2011
  3. Flury M, Nyberg E, Riecher-Rössler A. Domestic violence against women: Definitions, epidemiology, risk factors and consequences. Swiss Med Wkly 2010; 140:w13099
  4. Hamberger LK. Men's and women's use of intimate partner violence in clinical samples: toward a gender-sensitive analysis. Violence Vict 2005; 20:131-151
  5. Archer J. Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull 2000; 126:651- 680
  6. Howard LM, Trevillion K, Khalifeh H, Woodall A, Agnew-Davies R, Feder G. Domestic violence and severe psychiatric disorders: prevalence and interventions. Psychol Med 2010; 40:881-893
  7. Trevillion K, Oram S, Feder G, Howard LM. Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012; 7:e51740
  8. Oram S, Trevillion K, Feder G, Howard LM. Prevalence of experiences of domestic violence among psychiatric patients: systematic review. Br J Psychiatry 2013; 202:94-99
  9. Akyuz G, Kugu N, Dogan O, Ozdemir L. Domestic violence, marriage problems, referral complaints and psychiatric diagnosis of the married women admitted to a psychiatry outpatient clinic. New Symposium 2002; 40:41-48. (Turkish
  10. Vahip I, Doganavsargil O. Domestic violence and female patients. Turk Psikiyatri Derg 2006; 17:107-114. (Turkish
  11. Korkmaz S, Korucu T, Yildiz S, Kaya S, Izci F, Atmaca M. Frequency of domestic violence in psychiatric patients and related factors. Dusunen Adam The Journal of Psychiatry and Neurological Sciences 2016; 29:359-366. (Turkish
  12. Kurt E, Yorguner Kupeli N, Sonmez E, Bulut NS, Akvardar Y. Domestic violence among women attending to psychiatric outpatient clinic. Noro Psikiyatr Ars 2016; 55:22-28. (Turkish
  13. Abramsky T, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C, Devries K, Kiss L, Ellsberg M, et al. What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health 2011; 11:109
  14. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Shortt JW, Kim HK. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse 2012; 3:231-280
  15. Schumacher JA, Feldbau-Kohn S, Smith Slep AM, Heyman