Next Article in Journal
RPC Teacher-Based Program for Improving Coping Strategies to Deal with Cyberbullying
Next Article in Special Issue
Global Need for Physical Rehabilitation: Systematic Analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017
Previous Article in Journal
Rural-Urban Variation in Weight Loss Recommendations Among US Older Adults with Arthritis and Obesity
Previous Article in Special Issue
The UNICEF/Washington Group Child Functioning Module—Accuracy, Inter-Rater Reliability and Cut-Off Level for Disability Disaggregation of Fiji’s Education Management Information System
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 6
10.3390/ijerph16060947
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Intimate Partner Violence among Women with Disabilities in Uganda

by
Anne Valentine
*,
Ilhom Akobirshoev
and
Monika Mitra
The Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA 02453, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(6), 947; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060947
Submission received: 10 January 2019 / Revised: 26 February 2019 / Accepted: 14 March 2019 / Published: 16 March 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Disability and Global Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Violence against women with disabilities is pervasive, yet a paucity of research examines intimate partner violence (IPV) experienced by women with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of this study is to document the prevalence and consequences of IPV exposure among Ugandan women with disabilities. Cross sectional data from the 2011 and 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) were used to study married and/or partnered women aged 15–49 who answered specific questions about lifetime intimate partner violence (N = 8592). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between disability, IPV, and indicators of maternal and child health. Compared to women without disabilities, women with disabilities were more likely to experience lifetime physical violence (odds ratio (OR) 1.4, p < 0.01), sexual violence (OR = 1.7, p < 0.01), and emotional abuse (1.4, p < 0.01) after controlling for sociodemographic and household characteristics. Study findings suggest that women with disabilities in Uganda may experience increased risk for IPV compared to women without disabilities, with concomitant risks to their health and the survival of their infants. Further research examining the prevalence and correlates of IPV in low- and middle-income countries is needed to address the needs and rights of women with disabilities.

1. Introduction

Violence against women is a pervasive, global public health problem [1]. Estimates suggest that 30–35% of ever-partnered women aged 15 years and older have experienced physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) in their lifetime [1,2]. IPV is defined as physical, sexual, or emotional harm by a current or former spouse or partner [3], although research to date has primarily assessed the impact of physical and/or sexual violence by a partner. There is considerable heterogeneity globally, in both prevalence estimates of IPV and in the extent to which spousal abuse is considered acceptable and/or permissible [4,5,6], suggesting that contextual factors are an important determinant of violence against women [7,8].
Countries across sub-Saharan Africa experience very high rates of IPV and gender-based violence [2,9]. In 2016, 56% of ever-married Ugandan women reported IPV, with marked variations in prevalence estimates by geographic region and between rural and urban areas [10]. Between 2011 and 2016, the percentage of ever-married Ugandan women who reported experiencing physical, sexual, or emotional abuse by a current or former spouse decreased slightly, however, lifetime prevalence estimates remain high [11].
Women exposed to IPV experience a range of short- and long-term adverse physical and psychological harm including increased risk of unwanted pregnancy, pregnancy loss, sexually transmitted infection, HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus), posttraumatic stress disorder, depression, suicidality, and physical disability [2,12,13,14]. Several factors are associated with a woman’s risk of experiencing IPV including: young age, low education, unemployment of male partner, disparity between partners’ education, marital discord, societal acceptance of violence, child maltreatment, witnessing violence as a child, alcohol use, and gender attitudes that support the marginalization of women [15,16,17].
Research conducted in high-income countries suggests that disability is both a risk marker and a consequence of IPV in women. Women abused by an intimate partner are significantly more likely to report a disability or chronic condition that impacts their ability to carry out activities of daily living [18]; in low- and middle-income countries IPV is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in reproductive aged women [19]. Prevalence estimates of physical and sexual violence experienced by disabled women are either similar to, or higher than, those reported by non-disabled women [20,21,22,23,24,25]. However, some scholars maintain that accurate prevalence rates do not exist given the scant attention paid to disability-related abuse in assessing IPV among women with disabilities [25].
Notably, there is research suggesting that the nature of victimization and abuse experienced by women with disabilities may be distinct from that experienced by women without disabilities. Women with disabilities are particularly at risk for severe violence [20,26], for sexual assault [27,28], and disability-related neglect [29,30]. In comparison to their male counterparts, women with disabilities are more likely to live in conditions characterized by poverty and isolation, increasing the likelihood that they experience violence without recourse [20,27]. Further, compared to non-disabled women, the duration of exposure to violence may be longer among disabled women [31] and disability-specific abuse is common [25].
The risk of IPV in women with disabilities is attributed to a number of complex contextual and social factors. Increased dependency on others for care, physical vulnerability, social isolation, and lack of economic independence are posited to make women with disabilities more vulnerable [27,31,32,33,34]; however, the devaluation of all persons with disabilities and the particular marginalization of sexuality in women with disabilities are important drivers of vulnerability as well. Consequently, some researchers maintain that violence against women with disabilities encompasses both disability-based and gender-based violence [35,36,37].
Despite the overwhelming evidence on the magnitude of violence against people with disabilities, there is a paucity of research on IPV among women with disabilities, particularly in low-income countries [30]. A majority of research to date has been conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom. A 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis of research examining violence against adults with disabilities included a single study from a middle-income county; no studies from low-income countries met the review’s inclusion criteria [30]. However, a few smaller studies are cited in the review [38,39], underscoring the need for rigorous research on the prevalence, correlates, and consequences of IPV among women with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries. To address these research gaps, the present study used national population-based data from the Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) to document the prevalence and health-related consequences of IPV among Ugandan women with disabilities.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data and Sample

The study utilizes cross sectional data from the 2011 and 2016 Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys (UDHS) [10,11]. The UDHS provides up-to-date estimates of key demographic, socioeconomic, and health indicators in Uganda including sexual and reproductive health in adults, infant and maternal mortality, nutritional status, malaria, disability status, and intimate partner violence. The UDHS employed a multistage cluster sample survey design. In the first stage, enumeration areas (EAs) in urban and rural areas were selected. In the second stage, a random sample of approximately 30 households from each EA was selected for the survey. Detailed information about survey design and sampling method can be found elsewhere [10,11].
The UDHS data are nationally representative for women 15–59 years of age. A total of 27,180 women were interviewed in 2011 and 2016. Of these, 10,036 ever-married women and/or women cohabitating with a partner during the period of the survey were randomly selected to complete the IPV module. To ensure confidentiality, specially trained female interviewers conducted face-to-face interviews and were instructed to skip the module entirely and/or end the interview if a private setting was not available. Our analytic sample consists of 8592 women who were currently married/cohabitating with a partner and responded to the IPV module. We excluded 1444 women who were formerly married/cohabitating with a partner (i.e., widowed, divorced).

2.1.1. Disability Measure

The main explanatory variable was disability, ascertained from responses to the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability [40]. Disability status was assessed based on difficulties an individual may experience engaging in activities due to a problem(s) related to: (1) seeing; (2) hearing; (3) communicating; (4) remembering; (5) walking; and (6) washing or dressing. Responses were categorized on a continuum of no difficultly; some difficulty; a lot of difficulty; and cannot do at all. We employed the Washington Group on Disability Statistics’ analytical guidelines to create a dichotomous disability status indicator using the 2011 and 2016 UDHS data [41]. Women who reported “a lot of difficulty” or “cannot function at all” to any of the functional areas were classified as having a disability; women who reported “none” or “some difficulty” were classified as not having a disability.

2.1.2. Intimate Partner Violence Measure

The main response variable was exposure to IPV including physical violence, sexual violence, and emotional violence perpetrated by a current or former husband/partner. Current married or cohabitating women were asked about experiences of IPV perpetrated by a husband or partner ever/in the past 12 months using an abbreviated version of the Conflict Tactics Scale [42]. Questions related to specific acts of violence such as being physically threatened or hurt, forced into sexual intercourse, or humiliated or insulted, were categorized into three domains denoting acts of physical, sexual, or emotional violence [43]. Those answering yes to any of the questions relating to physical, sexual, or emotional violence were classified as having experienced IPV. Respondents with negative response to all questions relating to physical, sexual, or emotional violence were classified as not experiencing IPV. Women exposed to multiple forms of IPV may have worse outcomes [44]; therefore, we created mutually exclusive categories for each of the three categories of violence as well as a combined indicator of IPV exposure.

2.2. Reproductive and Child Health Measures

In addition, the association between disability, IPV, and indicators of maternal and child health were examined, including: (a) use of modern contraceptive methods, (b) pregnancy loss/termination, (c) receipt of antenatal care during first trimester, (d) delivery at a health facility, and (e) infant mortality under 5 years of age. Use of modern contraceptive methods was based on response to a general inquiry about contraceptive use. Women who reported contraceptive use were asked about which method they used. Respondent’s use of either female sterilization, injectable contraceptive, intrauterine device(IUD), pill, implant, condom/female condom, diaphragm, or foam/jelly were classified as using a modern contraceptive method [45]. Ever terminated pregnancy was a binary indicator of a pregnancy loss resulting from a miscarriage, abortion, or stillbirth. Receipt of antenatal care during first trimester, delivery at a health center, and infant mortality under five years of age were all dichotomous variables. The maternal and child health outcomes among women without disabilities who reported no exposure to IPV (−/−) were compared to: (1) women without disabilities who reported exposure to IPV (−/+); (2) women with disabilities who reported no exposure to IPV (+/−); and (3) women with disabilities who reported exposure to IPV (+/+).

2.3. Covariates

Covariates used in the analysis were all among currently married/cohabiting women including: age (<25 years, 25–34 years, 35+ years), education (no education, primary, secondary, higher), union status (married, living together), age at marriage (<20 years, 20+ years), number of living children (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or more), and occupation (not working, agricultural occupation, nonagricultural occupation). Household characteristics included household wealth quintile (lowest, second, third, fourth, highest) and place of residence (urban, rural, Kampala).

2.4. Data Analysis

Sociodemographic and household characteristics were compared among women with and without disabilities. Proportions were reported for categorical variables, with a Chi-square test used to test significance. Means and standard deviations were reported for continuous variables and significance was tested using t-tests. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regressions to investigate the relationship between disability status and various types of IPV. Because a number of covariates in our models had missing values, we conducted chained multiple imputation for our analyses, consistent with best practices [46,47]. All estimations in the descriptive and multivariate analysis corrected for the complex survey design of the UDHS. We performed all analyses using Stata, version 15 MP (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) [48]; a p-value of <0.05 was the accepted level of significance.
This work does not meet federal definitions of research; therefore, the project does not fall under the jurisdiction of the authors’ university Institutional Review Board in 2018.

3. Results

3.1. Women’s Characteristics

Table 1 describes the sample and provides bivariate contrasts in sociodemographic and household characteristics between Ugandan women with and without disabilities. In comparison to women without disabilities, women with disabilities were more likely to be older, have less education, and have more children. Other characteristics between women with and without disabilities, including union status, age at marriage, place of residence, and household wealth were insignificant.

3.2. Experience of Physical, Sexual, and Emotional Intimate Partner Violence

Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Ugandan women with disabilities reported ever experiencing physical, sexual, or emotional IPV, compared to slightly more than half (55%) of women without disabilities, as shown in Table 2. Higher percentages of women with disabilities experienced physical violence (49% vs. 39%), sexual violence (35% vs. 22%), and emotional violence (51% vs. 39%) during their lifetime, than their peers without disabilities. These associations remained after controlling for sociodemographic and household characteristics. Namely, compared to women without disabilities, women with disabilities had approximately 1.4 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.01–1.82, p < 0.05) of experiencing physical violence, 1.7 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.23–2.34, p < 0.01) of experiencing of sexual violence, and 1.4 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.09–1.91, p < 0.01) of experiencing emotional violence. Similarly, women with disabilities were at a higher risk for specific acts of violence, as shown in Table 2. For example, the odds of being physically forced to have sex were almost two times higher for women with disabilities compared to non-disabled women (1.67, 95% CI: 1.22–2.29, p < 0.01). Notably, no significant difference between women’s exposure to IPV by disability status was observed when we used the IPV composite measure, adjusting for sociodemographic and household characteristics.

3.3. Association between Intimate Partner Violence, Disability Status, and Health Outcomes

Table 3 reports unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios from bivariate and multivariable analyses for the associations between health outcomes and IPV by disability status. Adjusting for all covariates, we found that compared to women without disabilities with no exposure to IPV (−/−), women without disabilities with exposure to IPV (−/+) had 1.3 times higher odds (95% CI: 1.13–1.51, p < 0.01) of pregnancy loss or termination and 1.2 higher odds (95% CI: 1.02–1.43, p < 0.05) of delivery at a health facility. However, disabled women with no exposure to IPV (+/−) had even higher odds, 1.7 (95% CI: 1.06–2.68, p < 0.05) of pregnancy loss or termination and there was no significant difference in the likelihood of delivery at a health facility compared to the reference group. Compared to women without disabilities with no exposure to IPV (−/−), women with disabilities with exposure to IPV (+/+) had nearly twice the odds (OR = 1.95, 95% CI: 1.32–2.89, p < 0.01) of losing a child under five years of age.

4. Discussion

This secondary analysis of UDHS data is, to our knowledge, the first to examine the prevalence of IPV among women with disabilities in Uganda and the associated maternal and child health effects of co-occurring disability and exposure to lifetime intimate partner violence. Depending on the type of violence exposure, the adjusted odds ratios of ever experiencing IPV in women with disabilities ranges from 1.3 (physical violence) to 1.7 (sexual violence). Within each category of violence exposure, the type of indicator markedly influences the risks observed; the odds of being threatened with a knife, gun, or other weapon, for example, are more than two times higher among women with disabilities compared to women without disabilities. Given that IPV prevalence among all Ugandan women is markedly higher than the average rate reported globally (35%), our study findings suggest an even higher risk for IPV among married Ugandan women with disabilities compared to their non-disabled peers.
Consistent with previous research in higher income countries [20,21,22,23,24,25], this study documents the heightened vulnerability to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse experienced by married/partnered Ugandan women with disabilities. Notably, compared to non-disabled women, women with disabilities in Uganda experience nearly twice the risk of one or more indicators of sexual violence (i.e., being physically forced to have sexual intercourse and/or forced to perform other unwanted sexual acts). We suspect that the prevalence of sexual violence, as well as physical violence and emotional abuse, experienced by women with disabilities is apt to be considerably higher than the rates reported here, as research shows that women with disabilities are less likely to report violence and also less likely to be believed if they report abuse [49,50]. Additional personal and systems level factors including fear, stigma, dependence on perpetrators, attitudinal and structural barriers to information and supports often pose additional barriers to disclosure [25,50,51]. Though these barriers are likely common among non-disabled women, it is important that future research examines the additional and disability-specific barriers to preventing and reporting abuse.
For women with disabilities, examining the mechanisms by which disability and gender-based factors increase the risk for violence is essential to the development of interventions and policies that prevent and/or mitigate the risks and associated consequences of IPV. Little is known about the underlying norms related to violence among women with disabilities. Plausible explanations for the heightened association between IPV and disability status in Uganda include the social acceptance of violence and the role of male controlling behavior and power relations within intimate relationships with women with disabilities. There are several unique risk factors for women with disabilities that may increase their vulnerability to abuse including: dependence on the intimate partner for essential care; a lack of transportation or inaccessible transportation; pervasive stereotypes that characterize women with disabilities as weak or helpless; and non-existent or limited social services and supports for women with disabilities who experience abuse [36,52].
Although we did not examine male controlling behavior in this study, it may be that consistent with results from a multi-country examination of IPV and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa, male controlling behavior is a risk factor for physical and sexual violence that is distinct from situational couple violence, which seems to be relatively common within married/cohabitating partners in many sub-Saharan African countries but is not characterized by a pervasive effort to dominate or exert control over a partner [13,53]. A 2015 study examining the association between male controlling behavior and intimate partner sexual violence in Uganda found that predictors of women’s empowerment did little to mitigate the risk of sexual violence, suggesting that interventions to prevent sexual violence ought to explicitly focus on men’s behavior and a seemingly pervasive tolerance of sexual violence within marriage [54,55]. Clearly there is an urgent need to understand the social norms related to violence and the role of control in intimate relationships among women with disabilities in Uganda. Further, given the high prevalence of emotional abuse reported by women with disabilities in Uganda, its relationship to impairment specific abuse (e.g., withholding/breaking assistive devices, withholding medications, refusing to assist with toileting, as needed) is an area of inquiry that deserves further investigation.
Consistent with other studies in low- and middle-income countries, our findings support significant associations between IPV and pregnancy loss/termination and infant mortality [56,57,58]. Many of the associations observed however, should be interpreted with caution as we are unable to disentangle the risk for pregnancy loss/termination among women with disabilities from the additive and/or independent adverse effects of IPV exposure in this analysis. Earlier studies have demonstrated that women who are deaf or hard of hearing, women with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities, and women who are at risk for disability are at greater risk for pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes [59,60,61,62,63]. Although this research was conducted in the United States and Canada, these associations merit further study in low- and middle-income countries, particularly among women residing in rural areas and among women with different disabilities—accounting for the severity of disability—as the correlates and consequences of IPV may be distinct [7,12]. Certainly, access to reproductive and child health services is likely very limited in some areas of Uganda [39], although difficulties in accessing reproductive health services among women with disabilities has been reported in urban areas as well [64].
This study contributes to an emerging body of research examining associations between IPV and disability among women in low-income countries using nationally representative data and robust, rigorous methods [37,58]. To date, this type of research has not been feasible. The UDHS’ early adoption of the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability provides some of the first population-based data on disability in sub-Saharan Africa and constitutes an important step toward full implementation of the UNCRPD (Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) [65]. Certainly, more research is needed to examine the context, etiology, and consequences of IPV and to identify strategies to prevent violence against women with disabilities in Uganda. Uganda is lauded among sub-Saharan Africa countries for its progressive approach to advocating for the rights of individuals with disabilities [66]. However, evidence suggests that significant gaps remain with respect to its disability-related policies and practices [64,66]. Further, violence against women remains a pervasive problem [6,67]. Research highlighting the nature and consequences of IPV among women with disabilities may lead to policies and intervention efforts that mitigate the risks and consequences of IPV exposure among women with disabilities, their children, and families. We hope that this study stimulates interest in the inclusion of the needs of women with disabilities in policy and practice efforts to prevent IPV and to address the Sustainable Development Goals of gender equality and the elimination of gender-based violence among women with disabilities in the Global South [68,69].

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study that are worth noting. First, the UDHS does not provide information about the severity, duration, onset, and cause of disability—all of which may limit the sensitivity and accuracy of the data provided. Second, the cross-sectional nature of the data also limits the extent to which we can infer temporality or causal associations between IPV and disability. Limited research to date allows for the examination of whether disability occurred before or after exposure to IPV [30]. Longitudinal studies are needed to further examine the sequence of disability and lifetime violence exposure among married women in Uganda. Further, because formerly married or cohabitating women were excluded from the analysis, information about abuse that occurs after separation was not included [17]. Third, as is typical with many secondary analyses, the study was limited by the presence of missing data. Missing data may be increased given the sensitive nature of the data examined; both intimate partner violence and pregnancy loss/termination may be under-reported. Multiple imputations by chained equations, consistent with best practices [46,47], were used to impute values for variables with missing data. All analyses were performed using the developer-provided sampling weights, a commonly accepted approach. Fourth, per the Washington Group on Disability Statistics’ analytical guidelines, we created a dichotomous disability status indictor; this may make the disability measure less reliable. Finally, the data were all self-reported and, as such, the findings were subject to potential recall and social desirability bias. Despite these limitations, this work is highly relevant to researchers, policymakers, and non-governmental organizations working across various sectors to prevent IPV and address the needs and rights of women with disabilities.

5. Conclusions

The current study revealed high rates of IPV experienced by women with disabilities in Uganda, with significant risks to their well-being, as well as the health and survival of their infants. The findings underscore the need for a body of research examining the prevalence and correlates of IPV in low- and middle-income countries among married/cohabitating women with disabilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M., A.V., and I.A.; Methodology, M.M., I.A., and A.V.; Data Analysis, I.A.; Data Curation, I.A; Writing-Original Draft Preparation, A.V. and I.A.; Writing-Review & Editing, A.V., I.A., and M.M.

Funding

This research was funded by The Lurie Institute for Disability Policy, The Heller School for Social Policy and Management, Brandeis University. The funder had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  2. Devries, K.M.; Mak, J.Y.T.; Garcia-Moreno, C.; Petzold, M.; Child, J.C.; Falder, G.; Lim, S.; Bacchus, L.J.; Engell, R.E.; Rosenfeld, L.; et al. The global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science 2013, 340, 1527–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. CDC Definitions/Intimate Partner Violence/Violence Prevention/Injury Center/CDC. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/definitions.html (accessed on 30 December 2018).
  4. Hindin, M.J. Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bull. World Health Organ. 2003, 81, 501–508. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Rani, M.; Bonu, S.; Diop-Sidibe, N. An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife-beating among men and women in seven sub-Saharan African countries. Afr. J. Reprod. Health 2004, 8, 116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Speizer, I.S. Intimate partner violence attitudes and experience among women and men in Uganda. J. Interpers. Violence 2009, 25, 1224–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Jewkes, R. Intimate partner violence: Causes and prevention. Lancet 2002, 359, 1423–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. True, J. Who Suffers Most? The Political Economy of Violence against Women; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 161–182. [Google Scholar]
  9. Garcia-Moreno, C.; Watts, C.; Jansen, H.; Ellsberg, M.; Heise, L. Responding to violence against women: who’s multicountry study on women’s health and domestic violence. Health Hum. Rights 2003, 6, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS); ICF. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2016; Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS): Kampala, Uganda; ICF International Inc.: Rockville, MD, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  11. Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS); ICF. Uganda Demographic and Health Survey 2011; Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS): Kampala, Uganda; ICF International Inc.: Rockville, MD, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  12. Palermo, T.; Bleck, J.; Peterman, A. Tip of the iceberg: Reporting and gender-based violence in developing countries. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2013, 179, 602–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Durevall, D.; Lindskog, A. Intimate partner violence and HIV in ten sub-Saharan African countries: What do the demographic and health surveys tell us? Lancet Glob. Health 2015, 3, e34–e43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. De Beaudrap, P.; Mac-Seing, M.; Pasquier, E. Disability and HIV: A systematic review and a meta-analysis of the risk of HIV infection among adults with disabilities in Sub-Saharan Africa. AIDS Care 2014, 26, 1467–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. World Health Organization, W.H. Preventing Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Against Women: Taking Action and Generating Evidence; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  16. Heise, L. Determinants of Partner Violence in Low and Middle-Income Countries: Exlploring Variation in Individual and Population Level Risk. Ph.D. Thesis, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  17. Capaldi, D.M.; Knoble, N.B.; Shortt, J.W.; Kim, H.K. A Systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partn. Abuse 2012, 3, 231–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Breiding, M.J.; Black, M.C.; Ryan, G.W. Chronic disease and health risk behaviors associated with intimate partner violence—18 U.S. states/territories, 2005. Ann. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 538–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Heise, L.L.; Raikes, A.; Watts, C.H.; Zwi, A.B. Violence against women: A neglected public health issue in less developed countries. Soc. Sci. Med. 1994, 39, 1165–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Brownridge, D.A. Partner violence against women with disabilities. Violence Against Women 2006, 12, 805–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Powers, L.E.; Renker, P.; Robinson-Whelen, S.; Oschwald, M.; Hughes, R.; Swank, P.; Curry, M.A. Interpersonal Violence and Women with Disabilities. Violence Against Women 2009, 15, 1040–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Young, M.E.; Nosek, M.A.; Howland, C.; Chanpong, G.; Rintala, D.H. Prevalence of abuse of women with physical disabilities. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 1997, 78, S34–S38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Nosek, M.A.; Howland, C.; Rintala, D.H.; Young, M.E.; Chanpong, G.F. National study of women with physical disabilities: final report. Sex. Disabil. 2001, 19, 5–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Grossman, S.F.; Lundy, M. Double jeopardy: A comparison of persons with and without disabilities who were victims of sexual abuse and/or sexual assault. J. Soc. Work Disabil. Rehabil. 2008, 7, 19–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Plummer, S.-B.; Findley, P.A. Women with disabilities’ experience with physical and sexual abuse. Trauma Violence Abuse 2011, 13, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barger, E.; Wacker, J.; Macy, R.; Parish, S. Sexual assault prevention for women with intellectual disabilities: a critical review of the evidence. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2009, 47, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Martin, S.L.; Ray, N.; Sotres-Alvarez, D.; Kupper, L.L.; Moracco, K.E.; Dickens, P.A.; Scandlin, D.; Gizlice, Z. Physical and sexual assault of women with disabilities. Violence Against Women 2006, 12, 823–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Balderston, S. Victimized again? Intersectionality and injustice in disabled women’s lives after hate crime and rape. In Gendered Perspectives on Conflict and Violence: Part A; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2013; pp. 17–51. [Google Scholar]
  29. Copel, L.C. Partner Abuse in physically disabled women: A proposed model for understanding intimate partner violence. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 2006, 42, 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Shakespeare, T.; Officer, A. Prevalence and risk of violence against adults with disabilities: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Lancet 2012, 379, 1621–1629. [Google Scholar]
  31. Nosek, M.A.; Foley, C.C.; Hughes, R.B.; Howland, C.A. Vulnerabilities for abuse among women with disabilities. Sex. Disabil. 2001, 19, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Milberger, S.; Israel, N.; LeRoy, B.; Martin, A.; Potter, L.; Patchak-Schuster, P. Violence against women with physical disabilities. Violence Vict. 2003, 18, 581–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nosek, M.A.; Hughes, R.B.; Taylor, H.B.; Taylor, P. Disability, psychosocial, and demographic characteristics of abused women with physical disabilities. Violence Against Women 2006, 12, 838–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Smith, D.L.; Strauser, D.R. Examining the impact of physical and sexual abuse on the employment of women with disabilities in the United States: An exploratory analysis. Disabil. Rehabil. 2008, 30, 1039–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Breckenridge, J.P. The relationship between disability and domestic abuse. In The Routledge Handbook of Gender and Violence; Lombard, N., Ed.; Routlege: Oxfordshire, UK, 2018; p. 105. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ballan, M.S.; Freyer, M.B. Self-defense among women with disabilities. Violence Against Women 2012, 18, 1083–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Astbury, J.; Walji, F. The prevalence and psychological costs of household violence by family members against women with disabilities in Cambodia. J. Interpers. Violence 2014, 29, 3127–3149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mohapartra, S.; Mohanty, M. Abuse and Activity Limitation: A Study on Domestic Violence against Disabled Women in Orissa, India; Oxfam (Inida) Trust: New Delhi, India, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  39. Human Rights Watch. “As If We Weren’t Human”: Discrimination and Violence Against Women with Disabilities in Northern Uganda; Human Rights Watch: New York, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  40. Washington Group. Washington Group on Disability Statistics; Washington Group on Disability Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  41. Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Analytic Guidelines: Creating Disability Identifiers Using the Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS) SPSS Syntax; Washington Group on Disability Statistics: Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  42. Straus, M.A.; Hamby, S.L.; Boney-McCoy, S.U.E.; Sugarman, D.B. The revised conflict tactics scales (CTS2). J. Fam. Issues 1996, 17, 283–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kishor, S. Domestic Violence Measurement in the Demographic and Health Surveys: The History and the Challenges; Division for the Advancement of Women: New York, NY, USA, 2005; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hegarty, K.L.; O’Doherty, L.J.; Chondros, P.; Valpied, J.; Taft, A.J.; Astbury, J.; Brown, S.J.; Gold, L.; Taket, A.; Feder, G.S.; et al. Effect of type and severity of intimate partner violence on women’s health and service use. J. Interpers. Violence 2012, 28, 273–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Hubacher, D.; Trussell, J. A definition of modern contraceptive methods. Contraception 2015, 92, 420–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Royston, P.; White, I.R. Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. J. Stat. Softw. 2011, 45, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Schenker, N.; Raghunathan, T.E.; Chiu, P.-L.; Makuc, D.M.; Zhang, G.; Cohen, A.J. Multiple imputation of missing income data in the National Health Interview Survey. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2006, 101, 924–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Station, S.C.; StataCorp, L.P. Stata Statistical Software, Release 14; StataCorp LP: College Station, TX, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mays, J.M. Feminist disability theory: Domestic violence against women with a disability. Disabil. Soc. 2006, 21, 147–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Iudici, A.; Antonello, A.; Turchi, G. Intimate partner violence against disabled persons: Clinical and health impact, intersections, issues and intervention strategies. Sex. Cult. 2018, 20, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Opoku, M.P.; Huyser, N.; Mensah, J.; Amponteng, M. Barriers in reporting of sexual violence against women with disabilities in Ashanti region of Ghana. J. Disabil. Stud. 2016, 1, 77–84. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hassouneh-Phillips, D.; Curry, M.A. Abuse of women with disabilities: State of the science. Rehabil. Couns. Bull. 2002, 45, 96–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ali, P.A.; Dhingra, K.; McGarry, J. A literature review of intimate partner violence and its classifications. Aggress. Viol. Behav. 2016, 31, 16–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Wandera, S.O.; Kwagala, B.; Ndugga, P.; Kabagenyi, A. Partners’ controlling behaviors and intimate partner sexual violence among married women in Uganda. BMC Publ. Health 2015, 15, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Wagman, J.A.; Namatovu, F.; Nalugoda, F.; Kiwanuka, D.; Nakigozi, G.; Gray, R.; Wawer, M.J.; Serwadda, D. A public health approach to intimate partner violence prevention in Uganda: The SHARE Project. Violence Against Women 2012, 18, 1390–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Pallitto, C.C.; García-Moreno, C.; Jansen, H.A.; Heise, L.; Ellsberg, M.; Watts, C. Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy: Results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Int. J. Gynecol. Obstet. 2013, 120, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Silverman, J.G.; Gupta, J.; Decker, M.R.; Kapur, N.; Raj, A. Intimate partner violence and unwanted pregnancy, miscarriage, induced abortion, and stillbirth among a national sample of Bangladeshi women. BJOG Int. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2007, 114, 1246–1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Taft, A.J.; Powell, R.L.; Watson, L.F. The impact of violence against women on reproductive health and child mortality in Timor-Leste. Aust. N. Z. J. Publ. Health 2015, 39, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Mitra, M.; Clements, K.M.; Zhang, J.; Iezzoni, L.I.; Smeltzer, S.C.; Long-Bellil, L.M. Maternal characteristics, pregnancy complications and adverse birth outcomes among women with disabilities. Med. Care 2015, 53, 1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Mitra, M.; Parish, S.L.; Clements, K.M.; Cui, X.; Diop, H. Pregnancy outcomes among women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2015, 48, 300–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Parish, S.L.; Mitra, M.; Son, E.; Bonardi, A.; Swoboda, P.T.; Igdalsky, L. Pregnancy outcomes among US women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2015, 120, 433–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brown, H.K.; Lunsky, Y.; Wilton, A.S.; Cobigo, V.; Vigod, S.N. Pregnancy in women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Can. 2016, 38, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Akobirshoev, I.; Parish, S.L.; Mitra, M.; Rosenthal, E. Birth outcomes among US women with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Disabil. Health J. 2017, 10, 406–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ahumuza, S.E.; Matovu, J.K.B.; Ddamulira, J.B.; Muhanguzi, F.K. Challenges in accessing sexual and reproductive health services by people with physical disabilities in Kampala, Uganda. Reprod. Health 2014, 11, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD)/United Nations Enable. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html (accessed on 30 December 2018).
  66. Abimanyi-Ochom, J.; Mannan, H. Uganda’s disability journey: Progress and challenges. Afr. J. Disabil. 2014, 3, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Uganda: Violence Against Women Unabated Despite Laws and Policies/Africa Renewal Online. Available online: https://www.un.org/africarenewal/news/uganda-violence-against-women-unabated-despite-laws-and-policies (accessed on 25 February 2019).
  68. United Nations Spotlight on Sustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve Gender Equality and Empower All Women and Girls. Available online: http://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/multimedia/2017/7/infographic-spotlight-on-sdg-5 (accessed on 30 December 2018).
  69. García-Moreno, C.; Zimmerman, C.; Morris-Gehring, A.; Heise, L.; Amin, A.; Abrahams, N.; Montoya, O.; Bhate-Deosthali, P.; Kilonzo, N.; Watts, C. Addressing violence against women: A call to action. Lancet 2015, 385, 1685–1695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
Table 1. Sample characteristics.
CharacteristicWith DisabilityNo Disabilityp-Value a
n = 299n = 8293
Women’s characteristics
Maternal age
<25 years13.6%31.1%<0.001
25–34 years37.4%42.1%0.814
35+ years49.0%26.8%<0.001
Maternal age, Mean (SD)34.4(0.5)29.4(0.1)
Education
No Education18.1%12.8%0.022
Primary64.9%60.3%0.189
Secondary14.3%20.5%0.030
Higher2.6%6.4%0.017
Union status
Living together52.6%49.3%0.355
Married47.4%50.7%0.355
Age at marriage/cohabitation
20+ years27.2%28.8%0.617
<20 years72.8%71.2%0.617
Number of living children
05.0%6.5%0.391
17.4%13.6%0.003
28.5%17.7%<0.001
314.3%16.0%0.509
4 or more64.8%46.3%<0.001
Employment status
Unemployed15.2%18.3%0.284
Employed84.8%81.7%0.284
Household characteristics
Wealth quintile
Lowest20.6%20.5%0.959
Second21.8%21.1%0.801
Third22.8%19.6%0.237
Fourth20.6%18.4%0.435
Highest14.1%20.4%0.019
Place of residence
Urban13.5%15.8%0.352
Rural82.4%79.9%0.355
Kampala4.1%4.3%0.872
Source: Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys, 2011 and 2016. Notes: a p-values for differences, χ2-test or t-test.
Table
Table 2. Associations between disability status and experience of specific acts of violence among women with and without disabilities, aged 15–49, Uganda: percentages, unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios.
Table 2. Associations between disability status and experience of specific acts of violence among women with and without disabilities, aged 15–49, Uganda: percentages, unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios.
OutcomesWith Disability
n = 299		No Disability a
n = 8288		UnadjustedModel 1 bModel 2 c
%%OR95% CIOR95% CIOR95% CI
Experience any intimate partner violence63.554.71.45 **(1.08–1.96)1.29(0.94–1.76)1.27(0.93–1.74)
Experience any physical spousal violence48.938.51.53 ***(1.15–2.02)1.37 **(1.02–1.85)1.35 **(1.01–1.82)
Ever push you, shook you or throw something at you28.717.71.87 ***(1.37–2.55)1.67 ***(1.21–2.31)1.64 ***(1.19–2.28)
Ever slap you42.633.01.51 ***(1.12–2.02)1.37 **(1.00–1.86)1.35 *(0.99–1.82)
Ever twist your arm or pull your hair19.210.81.97 ***(1.31–2.95)1.73 ***(1.14–2.62)1.72 ***(1.14–2.58)
Ever punch you with his/her fist or something that could hurt you20.914.31.58 ***(1.12–2.24)1.38 *(0.97–1.97)1.36 *(0.95–1.96)
Ever kick you, drag you or beat you up22.315.01.63 ***(1.13–2.36)1.46 *(1.00–2.14)1.44 *(0.99–2.11)
Ever try to choke you or burn you on purpose11.05.32.21 ***(1.26–3.87)1.87 **(1.06–3.31)1.85 **(1.05–3.25)
Ever threaten or attack you with a knife, gun or other weapon11.94.72.78 ***(1.68–4.59)2.23 ***(1.34–3.70)2.19 ***(1.32–3.64)
Experience any spousal sexual violence34.622.41.80 ***(1.31–2.45)1.73 ***(1.26–2.36)1.71 ***(1.26–2.34)
Ever physically force you to have sexual intercourse with him/her even when you did not want to32.421.11.80 ***(1.32–2.46)1.68 ***(1.23–2.31)1.67 ***(1.22–2.29)
Ever force you to perform any other sexual acts you did not want to11.65.11.80 ***(1.32–2.46)1.68 ***(1.23–2.31)1.67 ***(1.22–2.29)
Experience any emotional spousal violence51.239.01.64 ***(1.25–2.15)1.46 ***(1.10–1.94)1.44 **(1.09–1.91)
Ever say or do something to humiliate you in front of others29.519.51.72 ***(1.26–2.35)1.50 **(1.09–2.08)1.49 **(1.09–2.05)
Ever threaten to hurt or harm you or someone close to you26.017.91.61 ***(1.15–2.26)1.46 **(1.04–2.05)1.44 **(1.02–2.02)
Ever insult you or make you feel bad about yourself41.731.91.53 ***(1.16–2.03)1.37 **(1.02–1.83)1.35 **(1.01–1.81)
Source: Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys, 2011, 2016, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Notes: a women without disabilities served as the reference group in the unadjusted and multivariate regression analysis; b adjusted for maternal age, education, union status, age at marriage, number of living children, and occupation; c adjusted for maternal age, education, union status, age at marriage, number of living children, occupation, household wealth, and place of residence. Abbreviations: OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.
Table
Table 3. Odds ratios (OR) of select health outcomes among women with and without disabilities by experience of intimate partner violence, aged 15–49, Uganda: unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios.
Table 3. Odds ratios (OR) of select health outcomes among women with and without disabilities by experience of intimate partner violence, aged 15–49, Uganda: unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios.
Health OutcomesNo Disability
no IPV (−/−)		No Disability
IPV (−/+)		with Disability
no IPV (+/−)		with Disability
IPV (+/+)
Currently use modern contraceptive method
Unadjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.000.95(0.83–1.08)1.07(0.68–1.68)0.85(0.58–1.24)
Adjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.000.92(0.80–1.05)0.98(0.62–1.54)0.87(0.57–1.31)
Weighted number8595
Ever terminated pregnancy
Unadjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.38 ***(1.21–1.58)2.06 ***(1.32–3.21)1.78 ***(1.23–2.58)
Adjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.31 ***(1.13–1.51)1.69 **(1.06–2.68)1.39 *(0.96–2.01)
Weighted number8595
First ANC visit within first trimester
Unadjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.09(0.95–1.26)1.71 *(0.92–3.18)0.93(0.59–1.48)
Adjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.02(0.88–1.19)1.68(0.90–3.13)0.84(0.52–1.34)
Weighted number6654
Delivered at health facility
Unadjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.58 ***(1.34–1.85)1.03(0.55–1.94)2.00 ***(1.20–3.34)
Adjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.21 **(1.02–1.43)0.79(0.41–1.52)1.53(0.90–2.61)
Weighted number6692
Had child who died <5 years
Unadjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.37 ***(1.19–1.58)1.14(0.68–1.89)3.11 ***(2.14–4.52)
Adjusted, OR (95% CI)1.001.001.07(0.91–1.25)0.69(0.39–1.23)1.95 ***(1.32–2.89)
Weighted number8595
Source: Uganda Demographic and Health Surveys, 2011, 2016, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1. Notes: adjusted for maternal age, education, union status, age at marriage, number of living children, occupation, household wealth, and place of residence. Abbreviations: IPV = intimate partner violence; ANC = antenatal care; OR = odds ratio, CI = confidence interval.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Valentine, A.; Akobirshoev, I.; Mitra, M. Intimate Partner Violence among Women with Disabilities in Uganda. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060947

AMA Style

Valentine A, Akobirshoev I, Mitra M. Intimate Partner Violence among Women with Disabilities in Uganda. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(6):947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060947

Chicago/Turabian Style

Valentine, Anne, Ilhom Akobirshoev, and Monika Mitra. 2019. "Intimate Partner Violence among Women with Disabilities in Uganda" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 6: 947. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060947

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop