Male and Female Physical Intimate Partner Violence and Socio-Economic Position: a Cross-Sectional International Multicentre Study in Europe

Objectives: This work explores the association between socio-economic position (SEP) and intimate partner violence (IPV) considering the perspectives of men and women as victims, perpetrators and as both (bidirectional).Study design: Cross-sectional international multicentre study.Methods: A sample of 3496 men and women, (aged 18-64 years), randomly selected from the general population of residents from six European cities was assessed: Athens; Budapest; London; Ostersund; Porto; and Stuttgart. Their education (primary, secondary and university), occupation (upper white collar, lower white collar and blue collar) and unemployment duration (never, <= 12 months and >12 months) were considered as SEP indicators and physical IPV was measured with the Revised Conflict Tactics Scales.Results: Past year physical IPV was declared by 17.7% of women (3.5% victims, 4.2% perpetrators and 10.0% bidirectional) and 19.8% of men (4.1% victims, 3.8% perpetrators and 11.9% bidirectional). Low educational level (primary vs university) was associated with female victimisation (adjusted odds ratio, 95% confidence interval: 3.2; 1.3-8.0) and with female bidirectional IPV (4.1, 2.4-7.1). Blue collar occupation (vs upper white) was associated with female victimisation (2.1, 1.1-4.0), female perpetration (3.0, 1.3-6.8) and female bidirectional IPV (4.0, 2.3-7.0). Unemployment duration was associated with male perpetration (>12 months of unemployment vs never unemployed: 3.8; 1.7-8.7) and with bidirectional IPV in both sex (women: 1.8, 1.2-2.7; men: 1.7, 1.0-2.8).Conclusions: In these European centres, physical IPV was associated with a disadvantaged SEP. A consistent socio-economic gradient was observed in female bidirectional involvement, but victims or perpetrators-only presented gender specificities according to levels of education, occupation differentiation and unemployment duration potentially useful for designing interventions. (C) 2016 The Royal Society for Public Health. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.