Table 3

Associations of socioeconomic and demographic factors with past-year physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence

Factor

na

% IPV+b

Univariate PR (95% CI)

Univariate OR (95% CI)

p

Adjusted ORc (95% CI)

p


Participant's age

32+

51

17.7

1.0

1.0

0.031

1.0

0.010

≤ 31

221

33.0

1.9 (1.0, 3.5)

2.3 (1.1, 5.0)

3.2 (1.3, 7.6)

Relationship status

Married/boyfriend

201

22.4

1.0

1.0

0.001

1.0

<0.001

Separated/divorced

72

51.4

2.3 (1.6, 3.2)

3.7 (2.1, 6.5)

3.9 (2.0, 7.5)

Pregnant in past 12 months

No

112

31.3

1.0

1.0

0.715

...

Yes

161

29.2

0.9 (0.6, 1.3)

0.9 (0.5, 1.5)

No. in household

≤ 5

208

26.4

1.0

1.0

0.013

1.0

0.014

6+

63

42.9

1.6 (1.1, 2.3)

2.1 (1.2, 3.8)

2.3 (1.2, 4.6)

Home telephone

Yes

170

28.2

1.0

1.0

0.472

...

No

102

32.4

1.1 (0.8, 1.7)

1.2 (0.7, 2.1)

Partner's race/ethnicity

Whited

89

21.4

1.0

1.0

0.101

...

Native Americand

112

33.0

1.5 (1.0, 2.5)

1.8 (1.0, 3.5)

African Americand

28

42.9

2.0 (1.1, 3.6)

2.8 (1.1, 6.8)

Hispanic

28

25.0

1.2 (0.6, 2.5)

1.2 (0.5, 3.3)

Partner's educatione

≥ High school graduate

178

20.2

1.0

1.0

<0.001

See socioeconomic index

< High school graduate

83

49.4

2.4 (1.7, 3.5)

3.9 (2.2, 6.8)

Participant's educatione

≥ High school graduate

191

27.8

1.0

1.0

0.242

...

< High school graduate

68

35.3

1.3 (0.9, 1.9)

1.4 (0.8, 2.6)

Partner's employment

Employed/FT studentf

212

25.9

1.0

1.0

0.038

...

Unemployed

49

40.8

1.6 (1.0, 2.4)

2.0 (1.0, 3.8)

Participant's employment

Employed/FT studentf

136

27.9

1.0

1.0

0.452

...

Unemployed

137

32.1

1.1 (0.8, 1.7)

1.2 (0.7, 2.0)

Received public assistanceg

No

155

20.7

1.0

1.0

<0.001

See socioeconomic index

Yes

118

42.4

2.1 (1.4, 3.0)

2.8 (1.7, 4.8)

Poverty level

> 50%

181

26.0

1.0

1.0

0.022

See socioeconomic index

≤ 50%

77

40.3

1.6 (1.1, 2.2)

1.9 (1.1, 3.4)

Socioeconomic indexh

Reference

99

10.1

1.0

1.0

<0.001

1.0

<0.001

Low

166

42.8

4.2 (2.3, 7.8)

6.7 (3.2, 13.7)

5.0 (2.4, 10.7)


IPV = Intimate partner violence; PR = prevalence ratio; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; Ellipses (...) = not applicable; FT = full time. aNumber of women in each stratum. bPrevalence of past-year IPV within each stratum. cFinal logistic regression model included only those variables listed in column. dNon-Hispanic. eAmong persons aged 18 and older. fFT students had the lowest IPV rate of all employment strata but sample size was insufficient to analyze separately. gReceived food stamps and/or Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) or welfare in the past 12 months. Past-year IPV prevalence for women receiving TANF (43.3%) was nearly identical to women on food stamps (43.0%). hBased on three measures for which there were statistically significant two-way interactions (see Table 4): partner's education (< high school graduate (HSG) versus ≥ HSG), public assistance (yes versus no), and percent of federal poverty level (≤ 50% versus > 50%); women categorized as ≥ HSG, no public assistance, AND > 50% poverty comprised the reference group.

Malcoe et al. BMC Medicine 2004 2:20   doi:10.1186/1741-7015-2-20

Open Data