1165690
review-article2023
TVAXXX10.1177/15248380231165690TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSEMorrison et al.
Review Manuscript
Intimate Partner Violence and
Immigration in the United States:
A Systematic Review
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE
2024, Vol. 25(1) 846­–861
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI:
10.1177/15248380231165690
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231165690
journals.sagepub.com/home/tva
Abigail M. Morrison1 , Julia K. Campbell1, Laurel Sharpless1,
and Sandra L. Martin1
Abstract
This systematic review sought to describe the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization among immigrants
in the United States (U.S.) and the prevalence of IPV perpetration among immigrants in the U.S. PsycInfo, PubMed, Global
Health and Scopus databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature that quantitatively examined IPV in relation to
immigration. Twenty-four articles were included in the final review. Past-year IPV victimization rates among immigrants
ranged from 3.8% to 46.9% and lifetime IPV victimization rates ranged from 13.9% to 93%; past-year IPV perpetration rates
ranged from 3.0% to 24.8% and the one lifetime IPV perpetration rate was 12.8%. Estimates varied widely by country of
origin, type of violence measured, and measure used to quantify IPV. Reliance on small convenience samples is problematic
when trying to determine the true prevalence of IPV among immigrants. Epidemiological research is needed to improve the
accuracy and representativeness of findings.
Keywords
domestic violence, sexual assault, predicting domestic violence
Introduction
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a critical public health
problem that transcends borders and is associated with a myriad of health consequences (Adhia et al., 2019; Bacchus et al.,
2018). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) defines IPV as any physical, sexual, or psychological
violence perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner
and estimates that one in four women and 1 in 10 men in the
United States (U.S.) experience intimate partner violence victimization (IPV-V) in their lifetime (CDC, 2021; Smith et al.,
2018). Globally, one in three women experience lifetime
IPV-V (Violence against Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018,
2021), and 25.4% to 80% of men report lifetime intimate
partner violence perpetration (IPV-P) (Fulu et al., 2013).
Global estimates for IPV-V of men and IPV-P by women are
not readily available (Scott-Storey et al., 2022).
Known risk factors for IPV-V and IPV-P include low
income, low education, being part of a minority group, experiencing stress, alcohol use, lack of social support, and living
in communities where violence and crime are common
(Spencer et al., 2022; Stith et al., 2004). These risk factors are
prevalent among immigrant populations in the U.S. (Sabri
et al., 2018) and create a bidirectional relationship between
IPV and immigration. The term immigrant, is used in this
study to encompass asylum seekers (a legally defined term
referring to individuals who were forcibly displaced or who
have fled their country of origin because of a threat to their
lives or liberties and are seeking international protection),
refugees (a legally defined term to refer to asylum seekers
whose request for asylum has been granted) and migrants (a
general term used to refer to individuals who leave their country of origin by choice typically to rejoin family or seek economic opportunities). While there may be unique risk factors
for each of these groups, many of the risk factors of IPV are
present among asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants (C.
Kim & Schmuhl, 2020; Li et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2008;
Sanz-Barbero et al., 2019). Acculturation theory and culture
theory identify acculturative stress, lack of social capital,
social isolation stress, language barriers, low social support,
poor financial means, low education status, cultural barriers,
and fear of deportation as specific risk factors for IPV among
immigrants (C. Kim & Schmuhl, 2020; Sabri et al., 2018).
The immigration and the resettlement process can create
1
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Abigail Morrison, Department of Health Behavior, Gillings School of
Global Health, University of North Carolina, 331 Rosenau Hall, Chapel
Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Email: abbymm@ad.unc.edu
Morrison et al.
stressful environments exacerbating tension between intimate
partners and resulting in increased IPV (Li et al., 2020).
Isolation can be the result of physical and geographic separation and/or social seclusion from supportive networks created
by a perpetrator, language barriers, and financial limitations,
and can restrict a victim’s ability to seek help to address on
going IPV and to prevent future violence (Li et al., 2020;
Marrs Fuchsel & Brummett, 2020; Midlarsky et al., 2006;
Moynihan et al., 2008). Additionally, many immigrants may
not know their legal rights in the country where they resettle,
leading to fear of deportation (Ingram, 2007; Li et al., 2020;
Marrs Fuchsel & Brummett, 2020; Moynihan et al., 2008).
One study also found that immigration status (either by forcible displacement or by choice) was a specific risk factor for
emotional IPV-V as victims reported perpetrators threatening
them with deportation (Rai & Choi, 2021). Furthermore,
immigrants women from strongly patriarchal societies are at
increased risk of IPV-V in part due to men holding traditional
gender norm beliefs that may sanction the use of violence
within relationships or position women as possessions of men
(Sikweyiya et al., 2020; Tonsing & Tonsing, 2019). Known
rates of IPV from patriarchal societies are likely underestimates as women may be less likely to report instances of IPVV, and if they do report, their social groups may dismiss the
event as acceptable (Li et al., 2020; Midlarsky et al., 2006;
Moynihan et al., 2008; Sabri et al., 2018).
Conversely, experiencing IPV-V in one’s country of origin is a risk factor for immigration when IPV victims immigrate in order to flee abuse (C. Kim & Schmuhl, 2020; Li
et al., 2020; Moynihan et al., 2008). Other risk factors for
immigration include low income, financial stress, poor job
prospects, and living in environments experiencing high levels of crime, violence, and political unrest (Efendic, 2016;
Parkins, 2010). Each of these risk factors is also a risk factor
for IPV-V (C. Kim & Schmuhl, 2020; Sabri et al., 2018).
History of IPV-V is also associated with future risk of IPV-V
(Black et al., 2011). Since IPV-V is common in areas of conflict and instability, immigrants who are fleeing such areas
may have higher rates of previous IPV-V experience, putting
them at increased risk for future IPV-V (Manjoo & McRaith,
2011; Stark & Ager, 2011).
Prior research has examined the prevalence of IPV-V and
IPV-P among specific groups of immigrants (GonzalezGuarda et al., 2013; Marrs Fuchsel & Brummett, 2020; Raj
& Silverman, 2003). For example, one study found that the
past-year prevalence estimate among Asian-Indian immigrant women was 46.9% (Munisamy, 2010). However, there
is no review that synthesizes research on prevalence rates of
IPV-V and IPV-P among all immigrants in the U.S. Given
that IPV-V may be one of the motivations for immigrating,
and that once one immigrates, additional IPV-V risk factors
arise (e.g., language barriers), we conducted this review to
assess if and how immigration status varied as a risk factor
for all immigrant populations within the U.S. These estimates may help to better describe the relationship between
847
IPV and immigration, and the demographics of individuals
affected by IPV.
Understanding the relationship between IPV and immigration in the U.S. could have implications for tailoring preventative interventions and designing immigrant-specific
referral resources. Understanding the prevalence of IPV
among immigrants is crucial to appropriately prioritizing
resources for those most at risk. Quantifying the nature and
scope of this problem allows us to identify gaps and patterns
that may inform future practice, policy, and research.
Therefore, this systematic review aims to synthesize existing
data to provide two estimates: the prevalence of IPV-V and
the prevalence of IPV-P reported among immigrants in the
U.S. In addition, we present prevalence rates by region,
report on sampling methods, IPV assessment tools, and
immigrant country of origin.
Methods
Selection Criteria
The systematic review protocol is available in Appendix 1.
The review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic
Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines
(Figure 1). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported
results of a primary research study and contained quantitative data on the prevalence of IPV-V or IPV-P among a sample of first-generation immigrants in the U.S. Studies were
excluded if they: (1) did not include a prevalence estimate,
(2) were not primary research or secondary data analyses
(e.g., case reviews or systematic reviews, gray literature, editorials), (3) were not written in or translated into English, (4)
reported on immigrant populations settled outside of U.S., or
(5) did not contain information about IPV (i.e., reported on
violence not perpetrated by an intimate partner). When
screening articles reporting on the prevalence of IPV-V or
IPV-P among immigrants, we included articles that contained
a sample or sub-sample of only immigrants. No restrictions
were placed on year of data collection or publication, participant country of origin, or participant age.
Search Strategy and Data Abstraction
PsycInfo, PubMed, Global Health, and Scopus databases were
searched in September 2021 using a combination of Medical
Subject Headings (MeSH) and text words. Search terms were
grouped into four main themes: IPV, immigrants and immigration, survivors and victims, and perpetrators. The four groups
of search terms were combined, and articles were further filtered to include only articles available in English. The exact
search terms and strategy can be found in Appendix 2.
Returned articles were downloaded from each database, duplicates were removed, and articles were uploaded into
Covidence, a systematic review automation manager. All titles
and abstracts were independently reviewed by at least two of
848
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 25(1)
Screening
Identification
Identification of studies via databases and registers
Records identified from:
Databases (n = 1760)
PsychInfo (n = 471)
PubMed (n = 401)
Global Health (n = 70)
SCOPUS (n = 818)
Records removed before
screening:
Duplicate records removed
by hand (n = 714)
Duplicate records removed
by automation (n = 2)
Records screened
(n = 1044)
Records excluded by hand
(n = 869)
Reports sought for retrieval
(n = 175)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 18)
Reports sought for
retrieval
(n = 1)
Reports not retrieved
(n = 0)
Reports excluded:
Not primary research (n = 33)
Not IPV/No IPV estimate
(n = 29)
Wrong population (n = 36)
No full-text (n = 19)
Setting not U.S. (n = 16)
Not in English (n = 1)
Reports assessed for
eligibility
(n = 1)
Reports excluded: (n = 0)
Reports assessed for eligibility
(n = 157)
Included
Identification of studies via other methods
Records identified from citation
searching (n = 1)
Studies included in review
(n = 24)
Figure 1. PRISMA Diagram.
Source: Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou,
R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., . . . Moher, D. (2021) The PRISMA 2020
statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://
www.prisma-statement.org/.
the first three authors (AM, JC, or LS). Each reviewer was
blinded to the other reviewer’s decisions until screening was
complete and discrepancies were flagged by the automation
manager. All three reviewers met to resolve discrepancies and
agreement was reached regarding which articles met the criteria for a full text review. Two reviewers independently assessed
the full text of each potentially relevant article and all reviewers met again to resolve discrepancies. Reviewers also hand
searched the reference sections of each included paper for
additional studies to include before data abstraction occurred.
The one hand-identified study underwent a full-text review by
two reviewers for eligibility. Reviewers designed a data
abstraction matrix and independently abstracted data from the
same article to assess internal consistency. Discrepancies were
addressed before data abstraction continued. Data from each
article with a clearly presented prevalence rate was abstracted
by a single reviewer. In articles where the prevalence rates
were not immediately apparent, all three reviewers met to collectively abstract data from these articles. The data abstracted
included: article title, author names, publication year, prevalence question addressed, years of data collection, sample size,
relevant sample demographics (age, gender, number of years
in the U.S.), participant country of origin, tool used to assess
IPV, and types of IPV measured.
Results
The study selection process is presented in the PRISMA diagram (Figure 1). The initial database search returned 1,760
unique articles and of these, 716 were removed as duplicates,
and 869 were excluded based on title and abstract. One additional article was identified through citation searching. A
total of 176 articles were marked for full-text review. Of
these, 18 articles could not be retrieved due to lack of institutional access, 33 were excluded because they were not primary research, 29 were excluded because they did not
contain a relevant prevalence estimate, 36 were comprised of
the wrong population (e.g., the entire sample was immigrant
victims of IPV, thus no prevalence estimate could be calculated), 19 had no full-text available (due in part to lack of
institutional access), 16 were not set in the U.S., and 1 was
not available in English. The final sample contained 24
Morrison et al.
articles all with unique sample groups. All included studies
assessed IPV or immigration status at a single point in time.
Studies used differing timeframes for assessing IPV including past-year and lifetime prevalence. Only one study
reported on whether the IPV (in this case, IPV-P) occurred
prior to or after immigration.
Studies were grouped based on which of the two research
questions they answered (Tables 1 and 2). Of the 24 studies,
20 provided data on the prevalence of IPV-V among immigrants in the U.S. and 6 provided data on the prevalence of
IPV-P among immigrants in the U.S. Two studies included
estimates of both the prevalence of IPV-V and IPV-P among
immigrants and are thus included in both groups.
Although IPV can occur in all types of intimate partnerships,
the studies included in this manuscript did not specifically comment on the sex, gender identities, or sexual orientations of the
participants or their partners. Therefore, in this manuscript, we
refer to participants mainly as “men” or “women” to remain
consistent with the studies’ original language.
Prevalence of IPV Victimization among
Immigrants
The 20 studies that reported the prevalence of IPV-V estimated rates ranging from 3.8% (Kimber et al., 2015) to
46.9% (Munisamy, 2010) for past-year IPV-V and 14.3%
(Shibusawa & Yick, 2007) to 93% (Barkho et al., 2011) for
lifetime IPV-V. Half of the 20 studies (50%), measured
IPV-V using the Conflict Tactics Scale (or an adaptation), 12
(60%) measured more than one form of IPV-V (e.g., physical
violence and sexual violence), 18 (90%) used more than one
item to assess IPV-V, 13 (65%) offered study materials in a
language other than English, and 14 (70%) used convenience
sampling. There were 14 (70%) studies that had a sample
comprised entirely of women. Of the five studies including
men and women, only one provided estimates of IPV-V separated by gender. Among studies that measured only one
kind of IPV-V (e.g., only physical violence), past-year and
lifetime prevalence rates ranged from 5.6% (Shibusawa &
Yick, 2007) to 32.9% (Finno-Velasquez & Ogbonnaya,
2017) and 13.9% (Shibusawa & Yick, 2007) to 39% (FinnoVelasquez & Ogbonnaya, 2017) respectively.
Among the 14 studies that used convenience samples, the
past-year estimates for any IPV-V ranged from 21.2% (Raj &
Silverman, 2007) to 46.9% (Munisamy, 2010), while the 6
studies that used randomly selected samples reported pastyear estimates from 3.8% (Kimber et al., 2015) to 32.9%
(Finno-Velasquez & Ogbonnaya, 2017). Studies that used
convenience samples reported estimates of lifetime IPV-V
ranging from 0% (Cuneo et al., 2021) to 93% (Barkho et al.,
2011), and studies that used random samples reported lifetime estimates ranging from 13.9% (Shibusawa & Yick,
2007) to 39% (Finno-Velasquez & Ogbonnaya, 2017). Most
studies (n = 24, 92%) had fewer than 1,000 participants. The
two studies with more than 1,000 participants were random
849
samples (Ingram, 2007; Kimber et al., 2015). Of these, one
reported a past-year prevalence rate of 8.7% (Kimber et al.,
2015) and the other reported a lifetime prevalence rate of
43.5% (Ingram, 2007).
A convenience sample of 55 Iraqi immigrant women
report the highest rate of lifetime IPV-V among all studies
examined: 93% of participants reported experiencing controlling IPV-V behavior in their life (Barkho et al., 2011). A
study conducted by Kimber et al. (2015) that used a random
sample of 5,128 immigrants from unspecified countries measured past-year exposure to physical and sexual IPV-V
among immigrants who had and had not experienced child
maltreatment. Findings from this study reflect the lowest
reported rates of past-year IPV-V among all studies examined (3.8%) (Kimber et al., 2015).
Studies with immigrant participants originally from China,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Vietnam reported past-year estimates
between 5.6% (Shibusawa & Yick, 2007) and 21% (Li et al.,
2020) and lifetime estimates between 13.9% (Shibusawa &
Yick, 2007) and 53.3% (Tran, 1997). Estimates from studies
with participants from India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and
Bhutan report past-year estimates between 21.2% (Raj &
Silverman, 2007) and 46.9% (Munisamy, 2010) and lifetime
estimates between 48% (Rai & Choi, 2021) and 50% (Pallatino,
2018). Countries with participants from Central and South
America reported a past-year prevalence rate of 17% (Sabina
et al., 2021) and lifetime prevalence rates between 0% (Cuneo
et al., 2021) and 60.0% (Hass et al., 2000).
Prevalence of IPV Perpetration among Immigrants
Seven studies reported on the estimated prevalence of IPV-P
among immigrants (Table 2). Six of these (86%) assessed
IPV-P using some form of the Conflict Tactics Scale, 4 (57%)
offered study materials in a language other than English, and
4 (57%) were composed of participants selected using convenience sampling. Of the six studies that reported on the
prevalence of IPV-P among immigrants, four reported on
past-year IPV-P with estimates ranging from 3.0% (Kimber
et al., 2015) to 24.8% (Gupta et al., 2010). One study of
immigrant men reported on lifetime prevalence measured
with a single item and found that 12.8% reported ever hitting
or throwing things at their partner (Sorenson & Telles, 1991).
Two studies used mixed-gender samples to examine IPV-P
and reported past-year rates ranging from 3.3% to 18.9% and
lifetime prevalence of 12.8% (Sorenson & Telles, 1991;
Vaughn et al., 2015). Two studies included only men and
reported past-year IPV-P rates from 9.5% to 24.8% (Gupta
et al., 2009, 2010).
The lowest rate of past-year IPV-P is derived from a
nationally representative sample that measured physical and
sexual IPV-P among 5,128 immigrants from unspecified
nations (Kimber et al., 2015). This study stratified the sample
by those who had ever experienced child maltreatment, and
those who had never experienced child maltreatment. They
850
1992–1995
Hass et al. (2000)
2004–2005
2008–2009
Finno-Velasquez
and Ogbonnaya
(2017)
Kimber et al.
(2015)a
2017–2020
Cuneo et al.
(2021)
2003
Not specified
Barkho et al.
(2011)
Ingram (2007)
2014–2018
Data Collection Years
Baranowski et al.
(2019)
Citation
n = 1,038 Latinoimmigrants
sampled from a random
digit dial telephone
survey, unspecified
regions of U.S.
(n = 12,039)
n = ~5,128 immigrants,
Nationally representative
sample from Wave 2 of
the National
Epidemiologic Survey of
Alcohol and Related
Conditions (NESARC I)
(N = 34,653)
n = 267
Nationally representative
sample from Wave 2
of National Survey of
Child and Adolescent
Well-Being (NSCAW
II),
n = 280
Convenience sample
from schools, health
clinics, and churches,
Washington, DC
n = 70
Convenience sample
from asylum
applications, archival
data from U.S.
n = 55
Convenience sample
from Arab associations
and businesses,
Detroit, MI
n = 57
Convenience sample
from asylum
applications and
archival data, Boston,
MA
Sample Description
Table 1. Prevalence of IPV-V among Immigrants.
Modified CTS1, 16 items
(yes-no response categories)
measuring any form of annual
and lifetime IPV
Language: English/Spanish
El Salvador,
Guatemala,
Dominican
Republic,
Honduras, other
Latin American
country
Not specified
Gender: 100% women
Age range: 14–56 years
Average time in U.S.:
5.1 years
Gender: 50% women
Average age: 45.33 years
Short Version CTS—Physical
violence and sexual violence
subscales, 6 items
Language: Not specified
Lifetime:
- 43.5% any IPV
Adapted Coalition for Immigrant
and refugee Rights and
Services (CIRRS-Adapted):
measuring physical, sexual, and
psychological abuse
Language: English/Spanish
Not specified
Gender: 100% women
Not specified
Lifetime:
- 49.3% physical
- 11.4% sexual
- 40.7% emotional/verbal
- 60.0% dominance/isolation
CTS2—Physical assault subscale,
13 items
Language: English/Spanish
El Salvador,
Guatemala, and
Honduras
Gender: 61% women
Average Age: 29.7 years
(SD 7.9)
Gender for all Latinos
(immigrant and nonimmigrant):
52.6% women
52.6% of Latinos are
immigrants
Timeframe not specified:
Overall (n = 57):
- 29.8% any IPV
Women (n = 35):
- 48.60% any IPV
Men: (n = 22):
- 0% any IPV
Lifetime:
- 39% physical
Past-year:
- 32.9% physical
Qualitative coding of medicolegal affidavits as part of asylum
application evaluations
Language: Not specified
Iraq
Gender:
100% women
Average age:
43.1 years (SD 9.96)
(continued)
Past-year:
Immigrants who experienced
child maltreatment:
- 8.7% any IPV
Immigrants who did
not experience child
maltreatment:
- 3.8% any IPV
Lifetime:
- 80% physical
- 93% controlling behavior
- 76% threatening behavior
Timeframe not specified:
- 63% any IPV prior to
migration
Qualitative coding of medicolegal affidavits using modified
consensual qualitative research
(CQR-M) method
Language: Not specified
28 items measuring controlling
or threatening behavior and
physical violence
Language: English/Arabic
El Salvador (35%),
Guatemala (21%),
and Honduras
(44%)
Gender: 100% women
Average age: 29.4 years
(SD 6.5)
Age range: 18–55 years
IPV-V Prevalence Rates
Tool(s) Used to Assess IPV
Country of Origin
Participant Demographics
851
2016
2019
Pallatino, (2018)
Rai and Choi
(2021)
1998–1999
2007–2008
Munisamy (2010)a
Raj and Silverman
(2003)
2008–2009
2019
Data Collection Years
Millett et al. (2015)
Li et al. (2020)
Citation
Table 1. (continued)
n = 160
Convenience sample
through community
outreach, Boston, MA
n = 211 immigrants,
Nationally representative
sample from Wave 1
NSCAW II
n = 98
Convenience sample
from Indian community
events and businesses,
and Hindu temples, 27
U.S. states
n = 30
Convenience sample of
Asian Indian immigrants
from community
centers, Allegheny, PA
n = 468
Convenience sample
through social media
and culturally specific
businesses, 50 U.S.
states
n = 475
Convenience sample
through Chinese
social network sites,
community groups, and
email lists, U.S.
Sample Description
Lifetime:
- 48% physical
- 38% emotional
- 35% economic
- 27% verbal
- 26% immigration related
Adapted Indirect Experiences
with
Domestic Violence SubscaleRevised Subscale from
Perceptions and Attitudes
Toward Domestic Violence
Questionnaire- Revised
(PADV-R), 15-items measuring
physical, emotional, verbal, and
economic abuse.
Language: English/Hindi
CTS2—Physical assault, sexual
assault, and injury subscales,
dichotomized
Language: not specified
India (70.2%)
Pakistan (11.7%)
Nepal (5.2%)
Bangladesh. (6.3%)
Other South Asian
countries not
specified (6.6%)
India (83.1%),
Bangladesh,
Pakistan, Sri
Lanka, or Nepal
(16.9%)
Gender: 56% women
Age:
18–35 years (64.2%)
≥ 36 years (35.8%)
Gender: 100% women
Average Age: 31.6 years
(SD 9.5)
(continued)
Timeframe not specified:
- 40.8% any IPV
- 30.6% physical
- 18.8% sexual
- 15.7% IPV-related injury/
need for medical services
Lifetime:
50% any IPV
Demographic Health Survey
Domestic Violence
questionnaire, 40 items
Language: Not specified
Unspecified Asian
countries
Adapted CTS2—Dichotomized
physical violence, sexual abuse,
and injury subscales
Language: Not specified
CTS2—Physical violence
subscale, 13 items
Language: English/Spanish
Lifetime:
- 30% physical/emotional
Past-year:
- 21% any IPV
- 4% physical
- 3.2% sexual
- 19% emotional
Lifetime:
- 31.25% any physical
Past-year:
- 23.83% any physical
Past-year:
- 46.9% any IPV
Gender: 100% women
Not specified
Gender: 100% women
Abuse Assessment Screen
(AAS-C)—measuring physical,
emotional, and sexual violence,
5 dichotomized items
Language: English/Chinese
IPV-V Prevalence Rates
India
China
Gender: 100% women
Average age: 33 years
Tool(s) Used to Assess IPV
Gender: 100% women
Country of Origin
Participant Demographics
852
n = 208
Convenience sample
through community
outreach, Boston, MA
2001–2002
2011–2012
Not specified
2013–2014
2004
Raj and Silverman
(2007)
Sabina et al. (2021)
Shibusawa and
Yick (2007)
Shuman et al.
(2021)
Thapa-Oli et al.
(2009)
n = 45
Convenience sample
from community leader
recommendation, New
York City, NY
n = 200
Convenience sample
from a community
health clinic,
Philadelphia, PA
n = 77
from n = 262 households
with Chinese surnames
in major metropolitan
areas in Southern CA
n = 364
Random sample from
Dating Violence Among
Latino Adolescents
study (n = 1,549)
Sample Description
Data Collection Years
Citation
Table 1. (continued)
India (86%),
Bangladesh (5%),
Pakistan (5%),
Nepal (2%), Sri
Lanka (2%)
Mexico (77%),
other unspecified,
non-U.S. countries
(23%)
China (65%),
Taiwan (17%),
Hong Kong (7%),
Vietnam (5.2%)
Mexico (80.5%)
Central America
(14.5%)
South America
(4.5%)
Caribbean (0.5%)
Nepal
Gender: 100% women
Median Age: 34 years
Age range 19–64 years
Gender: unspecified mix of
men and women
Age range 12–18
Gender: unspecified mix of
women and men
Average Age Women:
59.3 years (SD 8.65)
Average Age Men:
61.6 years (SD 10.25)
Gender: 100% women
Age: 77% of participants
were between 25 and
44 years old
Gender: 100% women
Age range: 20–49 years
Country of Origin
Participant Demographics
Adapted CTS2—Emotional and
psychological abuse, physical
assault, threats
Additional questions about
mobility restrictions, access to
resources
Language: English/Nepali
Index of Spouse Abuse, 30 items
measuring physical and nonphysical IPV
Language: Spanish
Adapted from Massachusetts
Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (MDPH,
2001), 4-items used to assess
past year physical abuse (1
item), sexual abuse (2 items) and
injury from abuse (1 item) by
current male partner
Language: English
Short Form CTS2, 12 items
measuring past-year physical,
sexual and psychological dating
violence victimization and
perpetration
Language: English/Spanish
Conflict Tactics Scale-1
(CTS1)—Physical assault
subscale, 8 items
Language: English/Mandarin/
Cantonese
Tool(s) Used to Assess IPV
(continued)
Timeframe not specified:
- 35.6% physical
- 51.1% pushed or shoved by
partners
- 42.2% punched
- 26.7% hit with object
- 15.6% need for medical
services
Lifetime:
Women:
- 14.3% minor physical
- 3.6% severe physical
Men:
- 13.9% minor physical
- 2.8% severe physical
Past-year prevalence:
Women:
-7.1% minor physical
Men:
- 5.6% minor physical
Lifetime:
- 34.5% any IPV
Past-year:
- 17% dating violence
- 4.7% stalking
Past-year:
- 21.2% any IPV
IPV-V Prevalence Rates
853
2005
Wrangle et al.
(2008)
n = 105
Convenience sample of
Spanish-speaking Latina
women at a hospital,
U.S.
n = 30
Convenience sample
from domestic violence
agency and civic
associations, Boston,
MA
Sample Description
Note. IPV, intimate partner violence; IPV-V, intimate partner violence victimization
a
Paper provides estimates for more than one research question shown in Tables 1 and 2.
1995
Data Collection Years
Tran (1997)
Citation
Table 1. (continued)
Conflict Tactics Scale R
(CTSR)—Physical and verbal
assault subscales, 13 items
1 item assessing number of
times partner forced sex
1 item assessing number of
times life was in danger
Language: Vietnamese
Adapted Slaps, Throws (things)
and Threatens (violence)
measuring physical violence,
3 items
Adapted Woman Abuse
Screening Tool measuring
emotional abuse, 4 items
Validated using the Index of
Spouse Abuse, 30 items
measuring physical and nonphysical IPV
Language: Spanish
Vietnam
Not specified
Gender: 100% women
Gender: 100% women
Average age: 38.5 years
(SD 11.4)
Tool(s) Used to Assess IPV
Country of Origin
Participant Demographics
Lifetime:
- 53.3% any IPV
- 47% physical
- 30% verbal
Prevalence at time of data
collection:
- 36.7% any IPV
- 30% physical
- 30% verbal
Lifetime:
- 31% any IPV
IPV-V Prevalence Rates
854
n = 5,128
Gender: 50% women Unspecified, non-U.S.
Nationally
Average age:
countries
representative
45.33 years (SE
sample of 1st
0.41)
generation
immigrants
from Wave 2 NESARC
II (N = 34,653)
n = 98
Gender: 100%
India
Convenience sample
women
from Indian
community events
and businesses, and
Hindu temples, 27
U.S. states
2004–2005
2007–2008
Kimber et al.
(2015)a
Munisamy (2010)a
Gender: 100% men
Age:
18–21 (22.3%)
22–26 (29.8%)
27–30 (24.6%)
31–35 (23.1%)
n = 1,668
Convenience sample
from community
health centers,
Boston, MA
Puerto Rico (18%),
Dominican Republic
(16%), other Caribbean
country (9%), Cape
Verde (34.6%), other
African country (5.6%),
Mexico/South America/
Central America (7.2%),
other unspecified
country (9.6%)
Unspecified, non-U.S.
countries
Participant Country/
Region of Origin
2005–2006
Gender: 100% men
Average age:
25.9 years
Sample
Demographics
Gupta et al. (2010)
n = 379
Convenience
sample from Men’s
Ecological Systems,
Development, and
Abuse Study, Boston,
MA
Sample Size
2005–2006
Data Collection
Years
Gupta et al. (2009)
Title
Table 2. Prevalence of IPV Perpetration among Immigrants.
CTS-2—Physical assault,
sexual assault, and injury
subscales, dichotomized
Language: Not specified
CTS-2—Physical assault,
sexual assault, and injury
subscales
Three modified items from
the Sexual Experiences
Survey measuring sexual
coercion
Language: English/Spanish/
Portuguese
Short version CTS—
Physical assault, sexual
assault subscales, six items
Language: Not specified
CTS2—Physical violence,
sexual violence, and injury
subscales
Three modified items from
the Sexual Experiences
Survey
Language: English/Spanish/
Portuguese
Tool(s) Used to Assess
IPV-P
(continued)
Past-year:
Immigrants who experienced
child maltreatment:
- 9.5% any IPV
Immigrants who did
not experience child
maltreatment:
- 3.0% any IPV
Timeframe not specified:
- 21.4% physical
- 30.6% sexual coercion
- 12.2% injury
Past-year:
- 24.8% any IPV
Past-year:
- 17.9% any violence
- 9.5% physical
- 11.1% sexual
IPV-P Prevalence Rate
Findings
855
2004–2005
Vaughn et al.
(2015)
n = 705
Random sample
from Los Angeles
Epidemiologic
Catchment Area
(ECA) study
(N = 3,132)
n = 3,338
Nationally
representative
sample from Wave
2 NESARC I
(N = 19,073),
Sample Size
Gender: 47.17%
women
Age: 45.7%
18–34 years (45.7%)
35–49 years (54.3%)
Gender: unspecified
mix of women and
men
Sample
Demographics
Note. IPV, intimate partner violence; IPV-P, intimate partner violence perpetration.
a
Paper provides estimates for more than one research question shown in Tables 1 and 2.
1983–1984
Data Collection
Years
Sorenson and
Telles (1991)
Title
Table 2. (continued)
Unspecified, non-U.S.
countries
Mexico
Participant Country/
Region of Origin
Modified CTSR, Physical
violence, sexual violence,
and injury subscales, 6
items
Language: Not specified
One item: “Have you ever
hit or thrown things at
your spouse/partner?”
Language: English/Spanish
Tool(s) Used to Assess
IPV-P
Past-year:
Latin American immigrants
(n = 2,085):
- 8.99% any IPV
Asian immigrants (n = 466):
- 5.72% any IPV
African immigrants (n = 83):
- 3.51% any IPV
European immigrants
(n = 349):
- 3.33% any IPV
U.S.-born individuals
(n = 15,733):
- 7.34% any IPV
Lifetime:
- 12.8% physical
IPV-P Prevalence Rate
Findings
856
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 25(1)
Table 3. Summary of Critical Findings.
Prevalence range
of IPV-V among
Immigrants
Prevalence range
of IPV-P among
Immigrants
Lifetime 13.91–93%2 Past-year 3.83–46.9%4
Lifetime 12.8%5
Past-year 3.03–24.8%6
Note. 1. (Shibusawa & Yick, 2007), 2. (Barkho et al., 2011), 3. (Kimber
et al., 2015), 4. (Munisamy, 2010), 5. (Sorenson & Telles, 1991), 6. (Gupta
et al., 2009).
found that only 3.0% of respondents who had never experienced child maltreatment and 9.5% of respondents with a
history of child maltreatment reported past-year IPV-P
(Kimber et al., 2015). The highest estimate of past-year
physical or sexual IPV-P (24.8%) is derived from a study by
Gupta et al. (2010) in which the countries of origin were not
specified for the 1,668 immigrant men in the sample. One
prevalence rate of sexual coercion among a convenience
sample of 98 immigrant women from India was higher at
30.6%, but the timeframe was not specified (Munisamy,
2010). One study examined IPV-P using convenience samples of immigrants from Central and South America, the
Caribbean, and Puerto Rico, and found the prevalence of
IPV-P to range from 9.5% (physical violence perpetration
among men) to 17.9% (any violence perpetration among
men) (Gupta et al., 2009).
Discussion
This systematic review found wide-ranging estimates of the
prevalence of IPV-V and IPV-P among immigrants in the
U.S. (Table 3). Overall, findings suggest that the degree to
which immigrant status is correlated with IPV-V and IPV-P
varies depending on how IPV-V and IPV-P were measured
and the country of origin of the sample population.
IPV Victimization among Immigrants
When examining IPV-V among immigrants, our findings
suggest that some groups of immigrant women experience
rates of IPV that are higher than, or at least comparable to,
estimated rates among U.S.-born women. The prevalence of
lifetime IPV-V among some immigrant groups in the U.S. is
as high as 93% (Barkho et al., 2011). This prevalence is high
when compared to a lifetime IPV-V prevalence of approximately 36.4% among U.S.-born women and 33.6% among
U.S.-born men (Smith et al., 2018). While Barkho et al.
(2011) and Smith et al. (2018) both assessed lifetime IPV-V,
Barkho et al. (2011) defined IPV-V as any controlling or
threatening behavior, or physical abuse by a partner, and
Smith et al. (2018) defined IPV-V as sexual or physical violence, stalking, or psychological aggression. “Controlling
behavior,” as defined by Barkho et al. (2011) can be widely
interpreted and broad interpretations may help explain the
elevated prevalence estimate derived from this study.
Additionally, Barkho et al. (2011) used a convenience sample size of 55 women and Smith et al. (2018) used a nationwide random sample of 5,758 women and 4,323 men.
Though the article by Smith et al. (2018) was not included in
this review as it did not meet eligibility criteria, the comparison to Barkho et al. (2011) illustrates the general variation in
prevalence rates of IPV-V found in this review: studies typically reported higher estimates when they measured lifetime
IPV-V rather than past-year IPV-V, used convenience samples rather than random samples, had fewer than 1,000 participants, used some form of the Conflicts Tactics Scale,
measured more than one form of IPV, and used more than
one item to measure IPV-V. Further, women typically experienced higher rates of IPV-V than men.
There are several possible explanations for the wide
ranges of estimates and for the general patterns observed.
First, there was variation in the timeframes in which IPV-V
was measured (e.g., Barkho et al., 2011; Munisamy, 2010).
In general, reported lifetime IPV was typically higher than
past-year IPV, likely because the measure captures a wider
timeframe and larger sample (e.g., Barkho et al., 2011; Hass
et al., 2000). This pattern is evident both across studies and
within studies that measured both lifetime and past-year IPV.
Second, studies used a variety of instruments to capture
IPV-V rates including versions of the Conflict Tactics Scale,
the Abuse Assessment Screen (e.g., Ingram, 2007), and
qualitative coding of asylum applications (e.g., Cuneo et al.,
2021). Although some of the scales used to assess IPV-V
were validated in English, many of the scales were translated into different languages, and construct validity was not
assessed after translation (e.g., Shuman et al., 2021). Thus,
it is possible that errors in translation or back-translation
biased estimates. One exception is the Conflicts Tactics
Scale, which has been translated and validated for use
among non-U.S., non-English speaking populations
(Aldarondo et al., 2002; Straus et al., 1996). Additionally,
many of the questions derived from scales designed for U.S.
populations may not have adequately captured all of the
experiences of IPV that individuals from other cultures may
have experienced. It is also possible that some immigrants
from countries with different cultural and gender norms may
not interpret violent behavior in the same way that it is interpreted in the U.S. For example, the CDC defines IPV as
“physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression by a current or former intimate partner”
(Breiding et al., 2015). However, sexual violence within a
marriage may not be considered to be IPV by all immigrant
participants, especially among immigrants from highly
patriarchal countries (Midlarsky et al., 2006). Thus, it is
possible that some of the scales used mischaracterized IPV
experiences or did not capture IPV experiences based on a
U.S.-centric understanding of IPV.
Third, studies that specifically measured multiple forms of
IPV and used more than one item to assess prevalence typically reported higher rates than studies that only measured one
Morrison et al.
type of IPV or used a small number of items (e.g., Ingram,
2007; Millett et al., 2015). Estimates based on only physical or
sexual violence will underestimate the true prevalence of IPV
(as defined by the CDC) as participants may not have had designated space to report other forms of abuse. This may also be
true in studies with few items assessing occurrences of IPV.
For example, one study used only six items to assess physical
and sexual IPV-V (Kimber et al., 2015). Affirmative answers
to these questions may vary depending on how the participant
defines IPV and may not allow room to gather information on
emotional or financial abuse. Alternatively, studies that asked
a number of questions about various abusive behaviors may
present clearer, more defined, opportunities for participants to
report instances of any type of violence and will result in
increased prevalence estimates, as found in one multi-country
study by Fulu et al. (2013). For example, when items ask specifically about a partner forcing a victim to have sex when they
did not want to, this might elicit a different response than an
item that asks whether the victim experienced sexual violence.
Presenting clear examples of specific behaviors that indicate
IPV-V could help to capture more accurate prevalence rates of
IPV-V and get around issues of definitions varying across individuals and cultures.
Fourth, studies that had samples comprised entirely of
women (or reported prevalence estimates separated by gender) reported higher prevalence estimates of IPV-V than
mixed gender or samples of all men. For example, the lower
estimate in the range of lifetime prevalence of IPV-V (13.9%)
is derived from men within a mixed-gender sample while the
upper estimate (93%) is derived from a sample of all women
(Barkho et al., 2011; Shibusawa & Yick, 2007). The lower
estimate in the range of past-year prevalence of IPV-V
(3.8%) is from a combined sample of men and women, while
the upper estimate (46.9%) is derived from a sample of all
women (Kimber et al., 2015; Munisamy, 2010). This is consistent with literature, which finds that prevalence rates of
IPV-V are higher among women than men (Violence against
Women Prevalence Estimates, 2018, 2021).
Fifth, in terms of sampling methods, studies used either
convenience sampling or randomized sampling methods, and
rates were generally higher in studies using convenience samples compared to random samples (e.g., Millett et al., 2015;
Munisamy, 2010). Convenience sampling was often used in
health facilities or in immigrant service organizations that
have formal reporting opportunities (e.g., Hass et al., 2000).
Individuals seeking services probably differ from the general
population in that they are likely experiencing more severe
forms of IPV (Duterte et al., 2008) and thus are more likely to
identify what they are experiencing as abuse (E. Kim &
Hogge, 2015). They are also already seeking help which indicates they may be more willing to report their abuse in study
surveys. Furthermore, studies that used convenience samples
had smaller sample sizes overall, likely resulting in a larger
margin of error than nationally representative studies.
One of the aims of this review was to examine the prevalence of IPV-V among immigrants from any country of origin
857
in order to determine whether immigration status may be conceptualized as a risk factor for IPV-V among immigrants in the
U.S. While the variety of methodologies and IPV definitions
likely contributed to the wide prevalence estimates, findings
suggest that the degree to which immigration status is correlated with IPV varies depending on the country or region of
origin. When examining regional patterns, the highest estimate of any type of lifetime IPV-V (93%) was derived from a
convenience sample of women immigrants from Iraq (Barkho
et al., 2011), and the lowest estimate of any type of lifetime
IPV-V (0%) was derived from a convenience sample of men
from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras (Cuneo et al.,
2021). In general, studies with immigrants from Asia reported
higher lifetime estimates of IPV-V, and lower past-year estimates when compared to studies with immigrants from Central
and South America. As previously mentioned, IPV may be
conceptualized differently among populations with different
beliefs about topics such as gender, marriage, or power.
Among immigrants from regions where patriarchy is the
norm, IPV is likely to be more prevalent (Sikweyiya et al.,
2020; Tonsing & Tonsing, 2019). For instance, the WHO estimates that Southern Asia has some of the highest rates of IPV
globally (Violence against Women Prevalence Estimates,
2018, 2021) and a systematic review by Pande et al. (2017)
found that a main driver of IPV in Southern Asia was patriarchy. This current review found that immigrants from Southern
Asia consistently report high rates of IPV. It is also possible
that regional variations are due to differences in reporting.
Highly patriarchal regions may have lower levels of reporting
because IPV is viewed as normal and acceptable (Li et al.,
2020; Midlarsky et al., 2006; Moynihan et al., 2008; Sabri
et al., 2018). Future qualitative research could be undertaken
to help clarify the contextual risk factors among certain groups.
Contextual factors identified through future research could
also be compared across countries and regions in order to gain
a richer understanding of contextual risk factors to help guide
the development of prevention and intervention protocols.
It is also worth noting that estimates may vary because underreporting is likely (Marrs Fuchsel & Brummett, 2020; Smith
et al., 2018). Underreporting of IPV experiences due to shame,
fear, or misunderstanding would underestimate the prevalence of
IPV in immigrant victim populations (Palermo et al., 2014).
IPV Perpetration among Immigrants
We found the past-year prevalence of IPV-P among immigrants in the included studies to be between 3.0% and 24.8%.
The lower bound of this estimate (3.0%) represents a sample
of immigrant men who were chosen specifically because
they never experienced any form of child maltreatment
(Kimber et al., 2015). Given that childhood maltreatment is a
risk factor for IPV-P (Manchikanti Gómez, 2011), it is logical that the prevalence of IPV-P would be lower in this group.
Excluding this estimate, the reported range of past-year
IPV-P among immigrants is between 8.99% (Vaughn et al.,
2015) and 24.8% (Gupta et al., 2009). In both of these
858
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 25(1)
Table 4. Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research.
Practice
Policy
Research
Improve practitioner understanding of
intimate partner violence (IPV) in immigrant
populations, improve screening for
IPV through broadened definitions and
conceptualizations of IPV
Improve resource allocation to IPV prevention
in immigrant populations, broaden definitions
of IPV to include immigration-related IPV
Need for standardization of IPV measures,
broader definitions of IPV to better capture
various types of IPV including emotional
IPV and immigration-related IPV, reporting
on temporality of IPV, additional studies
using large, random samples to obtain more
accurate prevalence estimates, studies
including immigrants from European and
African countries, and reporting on the
immigration status of IPV perpetrators.
studies, the participants’ country of origin was unspecified,
so regional differences are hard to parse. Three studies did
indicate the participants’ country of origin. Two studies contained populations from Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Dominican
Republic, other Caribbean countries, and unspecified countries within Central America. These studies reported IPV-P
prevalence rates of 12.8% (Sorenson & Telles, 1991) and
17.9% (Gupta et al., 2009). Previous literature suggests that
gender roles promoting aspects of “machismo” among
Mexican American men and men from South America is a
risk factor for IPV-P (Goicolea et al., 2012; Mancera et al.,
2017). However, one of these studies (Gupta et al., 2009)
also included participants from Cape Verde and other unspecified African countries without differentiating IPV-P prevalence by region. The third study included participants from
India and reported an IPV-P prevalence of 30.6% (Munisamy,
2010). This study looked at IPV perpetrated by women
against their husbands. Without a similar study (regional or
looking specifically at women as perpetrators) to compare
prevalence rates, it is unclear whether this estimate is representative of the region. For all studies examining IPV-P, the
cross-sectional nature of this data, does not allow us to determine whether individuals began perpetrating IPV before or
after immigrating. Nevertheless, these results suggest that
IPV-P among immigrants is common.
Limitations of this Review
There are five notable limitations of this review. First, while
it was not the goal of this research to produce findings that
are generalizable to other countries, estimates here can only
be considered within the context of the U.S. Second, most
studies did not specify when the IPV-V or IPV-P took place
in the context of migration. The studies included in this
review used measures to capture IPV within the past-year or
during one’s lifetime, but only one also specified whether the
violence occurred pre- or post-migration (Baranowski et al.,
2019). Knowing when the violence occurred would help to
examine whether immigration is a causal risk factor for
IPV-V or IPV-P and may help to clarify determinants of the
violence as they are likely different before, during, and after
immigration. Future studies should seek to include this information, and current measures of IPV should be adapted for
use among immigrant populations so that this level of detail
can be captured. Nevertheless, it is still important to recognize that past violence predicts future violence. Third, studies did not provide information on the immigration status of
the abusive partner. For instance, where the victim may be an
immigrant, the perpetrator may be U.S.-born or vice versa.
One risk factor for IPV-V is fear of deportation if one reports.
This may be more relevant when the perpetrator is U.S.-born
and the victim is not, as it creates a power imbalance that
could exacerbate IPV. Understanding such dynamics between
partners may help better explain the wide prevalence ranges.
It is possible that lower prevalence estimates result when
underreporting is likely, and that higher prevalence estimates
result when the victim is U.S.-born and familiar with the
legal system. Fourth, included articles collected data across
four decades. Immigration factors vary based on the social
and political climates in origin and destination countries. For
example, there have been changes in U.S. immigration policy during this 38-year time frame. Using cross-sectional
studies, as done here, does not accurately reflect changes in
migration patterns. Future studies may seek to address this
question using longitudinal studies. Most recently, there is
also emerging literature on the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic and related policies on IPV-P and IPV-V on immigrant
populations. Future research may seek to expand upon our
work to assess patterns in IPV among immigrant populations
during a pandemic. Fifth and lastly, the majority of studies
included in this review were comprised of small convenience
samples. This limits the strength of the study conclusions and
indicates a need for larger scale studies comprised of random
samples (Table 4). The heterogeneity of measures used to
assess IPV-V also limited the ability of the authors to conduct a meta-analysis of prevalence rates.
Conclusion
This systematic review identified relatively few studies
examining potential relationships between IPV and immigration. Moreover, the estimates of IPV-V and IPV-P vary
widely. This is likely, in large part, due to differences in
methodological approaches. Therefore, standardized measures, larger random samples, and longitudinal studies are
critical to more accurately estimate the scope of the problem.
Such standardization would allow future reviews to conduct
a meta-analysis or pooled prevalence estimate of IPV-V and
IPV-P rates among immigrants. Gaining such knowledge
may help to inform immigration and IPV-related policy,
practice, and future research.
Morrison et al.
859
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Abigail M. Morrison
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1952-8991
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Adhia, A., Kernic, M. A., Hemenway, D., Vavilala, M. S., &
Rivara, F. P. (2019). Intimate partner homicide of adolescents.
JAMA Pediatrics, 173(6), 571–577. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamapediatrics.2019.0621
Aldarondo, E., Kantor, G. K., & Jasinski, J. L. (2002). A
risk marker analysis of wife assault in Latino families. Violence against Women, 8(4), 429–454. https://doi.
org/10.1177/107780120200800403
Bacchus, L. J., Ranganathan, M., Watts, C., & Devries, K. (2018).
Recent intimate partner violence against women and health: A
systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies. BMJ Open,
8(7), e019995. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019995
Baranowski, K. A., Wang, E., D’Andrea, M. R., & Singer, E. K.
(2019). Experiences of gender-based violence in women
asylum seekers from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala.
Torture: Quarterly Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture
Victims and Prevention of Torture, 29(3), 46–58. https://doi.
org/10.7146/torture.v29i3.111970
Barkho, E., Fakhouri, M., & Arnetz, J. E. (2011). Intimate partner
violence among Iraqi immigrant women in Metro Detroit: A
pilot study. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 13(4),
725–731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-010-9399-4
Black, M. C., Basile, K. C., Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Walters,
M. L., Merrick, M. T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M. R. (2011).
National intimate partner and sexual violence survey: 2010
Summary report (p. 124). National Center for Injury Prevention
and Control Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Breiding, M. J., Basile, K. C., Smith, S. G., Black, M. C., &
Mahendra, R. (2015). Intimate partner violence surveillance:
Uniform definitions and recommended data elements. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv/intimatepartnerviolence.pdf
CDC. (2021, October 13). Intimate partner violence. https://www.
cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.
html
Cuneo, C. N., Huselton, K. E., Praschan, N. C., Saadi, A., &
Gartland, M. G. (2021). What counts as ‘safe?’: Exposure to
trauma and violence among asylum seekers from the Northern
Triangle. Health Affairs (Project Hope), 40(7), 1135–1144.
https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00082
Duterte, E. E., Bonomi, A. E., Kernic, M. A., Schiff, M. A.,
Thompson, R. S., & Rivara, F. P. (2008). Correlates of medical and legal help seeking among women reporting intimate
partner violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 17(1), 85–95.
https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2007.0460
Efendic, A. (2016). Emigration intentions in a post-conflict environment: Evidence from Bosnia and Herzegovina. PostCommunist Economies, 28(3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.10
80/14631377.2016.1166800
Finno-Velasquez, M., & Ogbonnaya, I. N. (2017). National estimates
of intimate partner violence and service receipt among Latina
women with child welfare contact. Journal of Family Violence,
32(7), 669–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-017-9912-9
Fulu, E., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., & Garcia-Moreno, C. & UN Multicountry Cross-sectional Study on Men and Violence research
team. (2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with male
perpetration of intimate partner violence: Findings from the
UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence
in Asia and the Pacific. The Lancet. Global Health, 1(4),
e187–e207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70074-3
Goicolea, I., Öhman, A., Salazar Torres, M., Morrás, I., & Edin,
K. (2012). Condemning violence without rejecting sexism?
Exploring how young men understand intimate partner violence in Ecuador. Global Health Action, 5(1), 18049. https://
doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.18049
Gonzalez-Guarda, R. M., Cummings, A. M., Becerra, M.,
Fernandez, M. C., & Mesa, I. (2013). Needs and preferences for
the prevention of intimate partner violence among Hispanics: A
community’s perspective. The Journal of Primary Prevention,
34(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0312-5
Gupta, J., Acevedo-Garcia, D., Hemenway, D., Decker, M. R.,
Raj, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2009). Premigration exposure
to political violence and perpetration of intimate partner violence among immigrant men in Boston. American Journal
of Public Health, 99(3), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.2105/
AJPH.2007.120634
Gupta, J., Acevedo-Garcia, D., Hemenway, D., Decker, M. R., Raj,
A., & Silverman, J. G. (2010). Intimate partner violence perpetration, immigration status, and disparities in a community
health center-based sample of men. Public Health Reports,
125(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491012500111
Hass, G. A., Dutton, M. A., & Orloff, L. E. (2000). Lifetime prevalence of violence against Latina immigrants: Legal and policy
implications. Domestic Violence: Global Responses, 7(1–3),
93–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800000700306
Ingram, E. M. (2007). A comparison of help seeking between
Latino and non-Latino victims of intimate partner violence. Violence against Women, 13(2), 159–171. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1077801206296981
Kim, C., & Schmuhl, M. (2020). Understanding intimate partner
violence in the Asian communities in America: A systematic
review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(4), 779–787. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1524838018791537
Kim, E., & Hogge, I. (2015). Intimate partner violence among Asian
Indian women in the United States: Recognition of abuse and
help-seeking attitudes. International Journal of Mental Health,
44(3), 200–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207411.2015.1035073
Kimber, M., Henriksen, C. A., Davidov, D. M., Goldstein, A. L.,
Pitre, N. Y., Tonmyr, L., & Afifi, T. O. (2015). The association between immigrant generational status, child maltreatment history and intimate partner violence (IPV): Evidence
from a nationally representative survey. Social Psychiatry
and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50(7), 1135–1144. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00127-014-1002-1
860
Li, Y., Bloom, T., Herbell, K., & Bullock, L. F. C. (2020).
Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner violence among
Chinese immigrant women. Journal of Advanced Nursing,
76(10), 2559–2571. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14458
Mancera, B. M., Dorgo, S., & Provencio-Vasquez, E. (2017). Risk
factors for Hispanic male intimate partner violence perpetration. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(4), 969–983.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988315579196
Manchikanti Gómez, A. (2011). Testing the cycle of violence hypothesis: Child abuse and adolescent dating violence as predictors of
intimate partner violence in young adulthood. Youth & Society,
43(1), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X09358313
Manjoo, R., & McRaith, C. (2011). Gender-based violence and justice in conflict and post-conflict areas. Cornell International Law
Journal. (Vol. 44, p. 22).
Marrs Fuchsel, C. L., & Brummett, A. (2020). Intimate partner violence prevention and intervention group-format programs for
immigrant Latinas: A systematic review. Journal of Family
Violence, 36, 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-02000160-6
Midlarsky, E., Venkataramani-Kothari, A., & Plante, M. (2006).
Domestic violence in the Chinese and South Asian immigrant
communities. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
1087(1), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1385.003
Millett, L. S., Seay, K. D., & Kohl, P. L. (2015). A national study
of intimate partner violence risk among female caregivers
involved in the child welfare system: The role of nativity, acculturation, and legal status. Children and Youth Services Review,
48, 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.12.006
Moynihan, B., Gaboury, M. T., & Onken, K. J. (2008).
Undocumented and unprotected immigrant women and children in harm’s way. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4(3), 123–
129. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-3938.2008.00020.x
Munisamy, G. (2010). Impact of intimate partner violence on health
in Asian Indian immigrant women (2010-99040-484; Issues
8-B) [ProQuest Information & Learning]. APA PsycInfo.
https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=201099040-484&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Palermo, T., Bleck, J., & Peterman, A. (2014). Tip of the iceberg:
Reporting and gender-based violence in developing countries.
American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(5), 602–612. https://
doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt295
Pallatino, C. L. (2018). Hindu Asian Indian immigrant women and
domestic violence: A mixed methods study (2018-11223-218;
Issues 4-B(E)) [ProQuest Information & Learning]. APA PsycInfo.
https://auth.lib.unc.edu/ezproxy_auth.php?url=https://search.
ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=201811223-218&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Pande, R. P., Nanda, P., Bopanna, K., & Kashyap, A. (2017).
Addressing intimate partner violence in South Asia: Evidence
for interventions in the health sector, women’s collectives,
and local governance mechanisms. International Center for
Research on Women. https://www.icrw.org/wp-content/
uploads/2017/07/Partner-Violence-in-South-ASIA-ReportFinal-file-17-04-2017.pdf
Parkins, N. C. (2010). Push and pull factors of migration. American
Review of Political Economy, 8(2), 6–24.
Rai, A., & Choi, Y. J. (2021). Domestic violence victimization among
South Asian immigrant men and women in the United States.
TRAUMA, VIOLENCE, & ABUSE 25(1)
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17–18), NP15532–
NP15567. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211015262
Raj, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2003). Immigrant South Asian women
at greater risk for injury from intimate partner violence.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(3), 435–437.
Raj, A., & Silverman, J. G. (2007). Domestic violence help-seeking behaviors of South Asian battered women residing in the
United States. International Review of Victimology, 14(1),
143–170.. https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800701400108
Sabina, C., Cuevas, C. A., & Ho, L. Y. (2021). Multiple dimensions of acculturation and the victimization of Latino adolescents. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology,
27(2), 280–295. Scopus. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000338
Sabri, B., Nnawulezi, N., Njie-Carr, V. P. S., Messing, J., WardLasher, A., Alvarez, C., & Campbell, J. C. (2018). Multilevel
risk and protective factors for intimate partner violence among
African, Asian, and Latina immigrant and refugee women:
Perceptions of effective safety planning interventions. Race
and Social Problems, 10(4), 348–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12552-018-9247-z
Sanz-Barbero, B., Barón, N., & Vives-Cases, C. (2019).
Prevalence, associated factors and health impact of intimate
partner violence against women in different life stages. PLoS
One, 14(10), e0221049. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0221049
Scott-Storey, K., O’Donnell, S., Ford-Gilboe, M., Varcoe, C., Wathen,
N., Malcolm, J., & Vincent, C. (2022). What about the men?
A critical review of men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 15248380211043828.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211043827
Shibusawa, T., & Yick, A. (2007). Experiences and perceptions of
intimate partner violence among older Chinese immigrants.
Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 19(3–4), 1–17. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J084v19n03_01
Shuman, S., Pollitt, A. M., O’Brien, M., Ibrahim, J., & Gupta,
J. (2021). Health correlates of intimate partner violence and
help-seeking among unauthorized immigrant women. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 37(17–18), NP15620–NP15648.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211020981
Sikweyiya, Y., Addo-Lartey, A. A., Alangea, D. O., Dako-Gyeke,
P., Chirwa, E. D., Coker-Appiah, D., Adanu, R. M. K., &
Jewkes, R. (2020). Patriarchy and gender-inequitable attitudes as drivers of intimate partner violence against women in
the central region of Ghana. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 682.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08825-z
Smith, S. G., Zhang, X., Basile, K. C., Merrick, M. T., Wang, J.,
Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The national intimate partner
and sexual violence survey: 2015 Data brief—Updated release
(p. 32). National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sorenson, S. B., & Telles, C. A. (1991). Self-reports of spousal violence in a Mexican-American and non-Hispanic White population. Violence and Victims, 6(1), 3–15.
Spencer, C. M., Stith, S. M., & Cafferky, B. (2022). What puts
individuals at risk for physical intimate partner violence perpetration? A meta-analysis examining risk markers for men and
women. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(1), 36–51. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838020925776
Stark, L., & Ager, A. (2011). A systematic review of prevalence
studies of gender-based violence in complex emergencies.
Morrison et al.
Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12(3), 127–134. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1524838011404252
Stith, S. M., Smith, D. B., Penn, C. E., Ward, D. B., & Tritt, D.
(2004). Intimate partner physical abuse perpetration and victimization risk factors: A meta-analytic review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 10(1), 65–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
avb.2003.09.001
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B.
(1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development
and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues,
17(3), 283–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/019251396017003001
Thapa-Oli S, Dulal HB, Baba Y. A preliminary study of intimate partner violence among Nepali women in the United
States. Violence Against Women. 2009;15(2):206-223.
doi:10.1177/1077801208329389
Tonsing, J. C., & Tonsing, K. N. (2019). Understanding the role of
patriarchal ideology in intimate partner violence among South
Asian women in Hong Kong. International Social Work, 62(1),
161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872817712566
Tran, C. G. (1997). Domestic violence among Vietnamese refugee women: Prevalence, abuse characteristics, psychiatric
symptoms, and psychosocial factors. PhD, Boston University.
http://www.proquest.com/docview/304338700/abstract/
FADB2DA7E93B4F7FPQ/1
Vaughn, M. G., Salas-Wright, C. P., Cooper-Sadlo, S., Maynard,
B. R., & Larson, M. (2015). Are immigrants more likely than
native-born Americans to perpetrate intimate partner violence?
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(11), 1888–1904. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0886260514549053
Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global,
regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women
861
(pp. 1–87). (2021). World Health Organization. https://www.
who.int/publications-detail-redirect/9789240026681
Wrangle J, Fisher JW, Paranjape A. Ha sentido sola? Culturally
competent screening for intimate partner violence in Latina
women. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(2):261-268.
doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0394
Author Biographies
Abigail M. Morrison, MPH, is a doctoral student and graduate
research assistant in Health Behavior at the Gillings School of
Global Public Health at UNC, Chapel Hill. Her research focuses
primarily on gender-based violence prevention, mental health, and
implementation science in sub-Saharan Africa and among refugee
populations.
Julia K. Campbell, MPH, is a doctoral student and graduate
research assistant at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She is interested in
community and policy-based approaches to the prevention of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and firearm violence.
Laurel Sharpless, MPH, is a doctoral student and graduate
research assistant at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her primary research
interests center around the impact that intimate partner violence has
on mental and sexual health with the aim of reducing its impacts
through strengthening trauma-informed policies and interventions.
Sandra L. Martin, PhD, is a Professor in Maternal and Child
Health at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at UNC,
Chapel Hill. Her research focuses on violence prevention, sex-trafficking prevention among school children and prevention of sexual
violence on U.S. college campuses and in the military. She has
authored more than 130 scientific papers plus book chapters/reports.