IPVSystematic Literature Review Preprint

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/331508486
A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence victimisation: An

inclusive review across gender and sexuality
Article in Aggression and Violent Behavior · March 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.avb.2019.02.014
CITATIONS READS
60 2,708
3 authors:
Philippa Laskey Elizabeth A Bates

University of Cumbria University of Cumbria
13 PUBLICATIONS 78 CITATIONS 61 PUBLICATIONS 796 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Julie C Taylor
University of Cumbria
17 PUBLICATIONS 84 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Systematic Review Investigating the Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence Victims View project
The effectiveness of Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders: a practitioner perspective View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Philippa Laskey on 09 March 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 1
A Systematic Literature Review of Intimate Partner Violence Victimisation: An
Inclusive Review Across Gender and Sexuality
Philippa Laskeyª*, Elizabeth A. Batesª & Julie C. Taylorª
ªDepartment of Psychology, University of Cumbria, Cumbria UK
*Corresponding Author at:
Department of Applied Psychology, University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle,

Cumbria, UK CA1 2HH Tel: +44 1228 616255 Email: Philippa.Laskey@cumbria.ac.uk
IPV VICTIM EXPERIENCES ACROSS GENDER AND SEXUALITY 2
Abstract
The traditional view of intimate partner violence (IPV) is that the perpetrator is male and the
victim is female (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, 1992). As a result of this, most research
into victimisation experiences appears to be conducted with female victims of IPV (Morin,
2014), and research with male victims, and victims from the LGBTQ+ community is less
common. The main aim of the current research was to conduct a systematic literature review
to synthesise the literature base of IPV victimisation experiences to ascertain how abuse is
experienced, and the effects of that abuse. The secondary aim was to investigate the prevalence
of different victim groups, across gender and sexuality, in current research studies. The review
highlighted that victims of IPV experience several different types of abuse and the negative
mental and physical health outcomes associated with that abuse are significant. Additionally,
it was found that the large majority of research studies included in the review were conducted
with female victims in opposite-sex relationships, and were quantitative and cross-sectional in
nature. The implications of these findings are discussed and suggestions for future research are
put forward.
Keywords: systematic literature review, intimate partner violence, victim experience, gender,
sexuality
Introduction
IPV is defined as being harm perpetrated by a former or current partner or spouse (Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, 2017). It is experienced in many forms by victims, such as
physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, financial, and coercive abuse (Jaffe & Schub,
2011). Despite there being a focus on physical abuse in some studies, the effects of any type of
abuse within a relationship can be significant and long lasting. Abusive behaviours can range
from the overt, such as punching, kicking, or pushing (Jaffe & Schub, 2011) to the more covert
behaviours such as isolation, threats, or stalking (Grose & Cabrera, 2011). IPV has traditionally
been investigated from the feminist perspective that the perpetrator is male and the victim is
female (Dobash, Dobash, Wilson & Daly, 1992). This is demonstrated in both policy and
practice, with awareness campaigns, offender treatment programs, and victim support services
being developed according to this traditional view of IPV (male-to-female violence; Nayback-
Beebe & Yoder, 2012). In contrast, evidence has been found of IPV being perpetrated by
women in opposite-sex relationships (e.g. Carney, Buttell & Dutton, 2007), within same-sex
relationships (e.g. Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead & Viggiano, 2011), and in relationships
where the victim is transgender (e.g. The Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010). However, it appears
that the representation of victims of IPV within the literature is weighted towards women in
opposite-sex relationships. In order to provide adequate support services to victims of IPV,
research must be conducted to investigate their experiences, across gender and sexuality. While
some abuse may be impacted by both gender and sexuality, far too often these terms are
wrongly conflated. It is important to consider the unique experiences associated with both
gender and sexuality. This review will attempt to separate gender and sexuality when looking
at victimisation.
Gender and IPV Victimisation
The majority of research into IPV victimisation focusses on female victims in opposite-sex
relationships (Morin, 2014); likely as a result of the traditional gendered (or feminist)
perspective that the perpetrator of IPV is male and the victim is female. Research has shown
that the victimisation of women by their partners is a substantial issue worldwide (Garcia-
Morero, Jansen, Ellsberg, Heise & Watts, 2006). The studies conducted on this population have
covered many factors associated with female heterosexual IPV victimisation, such as the extent
of injuries involved (e.g. Thompson, Saltzman & Johnson, 2003), help-seeking behaviour (e.g.
Martin, Houston, Mmari & Decker, 2012), the impact of psychological abuse (e.g. Coker,
Smith, Bethea, King & McKeown, 2000), the impact of IPV on pregnant women (e.g.
Campbell, 2002) as well as investigations into trauma and PTSD (e.g. Browne, 1993). The
wealth of literature conducted with female victims in opposite-sex relationships demonstrates
a significant and long-lasting effect of abuse on women’s’ wellbeing. In comparison, studies
involving male victims are much less prevalent, and the effects of IPV on men is not as well-
researched.
The research that does exist on male victims of IPV in opposite-sex relationships
demonstrates that their experiences are similar to the experiences of female victims in some
ways, but there are also differences. Men are just as likely to experience IPV as women
(Ferguson, 2011; Próspero & Vohra-Gupta, 2008), and in some cases, can experience it more
often (Pengpid & Peltzer, 2016). In fact, a meta-analysis conducted by Archer (2000) revealed
that women were significantly more likely to have used physical aggression against their
partners than men. Contrary to popular belief, the abuse that men face (both physical and
psychological) from their female partners can be extremely severe (Hines & Douglas, 2010).
Male victimisation is also less visible in society, possibly as a result of the differences in coping
strategies employed by male and female victims of IPV. Men are much less likely to access
help from support services in general (Addis & Mahalik, 2003), possibly leading to a greater
number of women seeking help, and in turn, less visibility of male victims of IPV. The abuse
can also be as severe as the abuse experienced by female victims from male partners, however,
because men are less likely to incur serious injuries from the abuse, their experience is not
always perceived as serious (Dennison & Thompson, 2011; Nowinski & Bowen, 2012).
Male victims experience the same types of abuse as their female counterparts, however
the execution of the abuse from their female partners may be different. Female perpetrators are
more likely to use weapons to abuse their male partners (Cho & Wilke, 2010), so therefore the
injuries that male victims sustain may be different from those sustained by women (Swan,
Gambone, Caldwell, Sullivan & Snow, 2008). In terms of abuse that appears to be unique to
male victims, it has been found that female perpetrators take advantage of systems, that are
designed for female victims, in order for them to be viewed as the victim, rather than the men
(Hines, Brown & Dunning, 2007; Hines, Douglas & Berger, 2015). Hines et al. (2007) also
suggest female perpetrators will target men’s vulnerabilities, such as attacking their groin.
Much like female victims of IPV, male victims experience serious and long-lasting
psychological effects of abuse, such as depression, PTSD, alcoholism, and self-blame (Hines
& Malley-Morrison, 2001). However, women and men have been reported to cope with distress
differently (Tamres, Janicki & Helgeson, 2002), with men externalising distress and women
internalising distress (Afifi et al., 2009), a finding that suggests that seeking to compare men’s
and women’s experiences of IPV victimisation may be neither appropriate or useful. This
observed difference supports the call for further investigation into men’s’ experiences of IPV
victimisation, and a departure from the traditional gendered view of relationship violence.
There is a limited amount of research concerning transgender people and IPV
victimisation, however, what research already exists suggests that transgender people can
experience more incidents of IPV than cisgender people (Langenderfer-Magruder, Whitfield,

Walls, Kattari & Ramos, 2016). One report, which examines transgender peoples’ experience
of IPV in Scotland, provides information regarding the prevalence rates in the UK (The Scottish
Trans Alliance, 2010). The research used a relatively small sample (n=60 in total) but it is one
of the only studies that has specifically examined transgender peoples’ experiences of IPV
victimisation. Of the sample, 80% of the respondents stated that they had experienced abuse
by a partner. However, only 60% of these people actually recognised the behaviour as abuse.
The most common type of abuse experienced was transphobic emotional abuse (73% of
participants). In terms of the impact that this abuse had, the majority of respondents (98%)
reported experiencing at least one negative effect on their wellbeing; the most common
negative effect being psychological or emotional problems (76%). These results demonstrate
the significant impact IPV can have on transgender victims, but also highlights the fact that not
all of them recognise their experience as abuse.
Transgender people can experience unique issues when facing IPV. When transgender
people are victims of IPV they experience types of abuse that other victim groups experience,
but some abuse can be targeted specifically at vulnerabilities that are associated with the
person’s gender identity (Brown, 2011). Some of these abusive tactics can include using
inappropriate pronouns, telling the victim that they are not a “real” man/woman, ridiculing the
victim’s gender identity, denying access to medical treatment such as hormones, hiding tools
that enable the person to express their gender identity, and threatening to “out” the victim to
their family and friends (FORGE, 2011). There are also examples of an abuser taking
advantage of the everyday difficulties a transgender person can experience. Transgender people
can face employment discrimination and can therefore be financially dependent on their
partner; this can in turn lead to the demanding of “compensation” in the form of forced
participation in sex work or the drug trade (Goldberg, 2003). It is clear that, while transgender
victims of IPV experience abuse that other victim groups experience, some abuse tactics take
advantage of the vulnerabilities that this population already struggle with. Greater emphasis
needs to be placed on investigating IPV in transgender populations, as often this victim group
is amalgamated into studies on LGBTQ+ IPV victimisation, and their unique experiences are
not explored fully. The differences in victimisation experiences, in terms of gender, further
reinforce the concept of investigating how victims experience abuse across the gender spectrum
in order to develop support services that are appropriate for all victim groups.
Sexuality and IPV Victimisation
Most research conducted on IPV victimisation is concerned with women in opposite-sex
relationships (Morin, 2014). Indeed, the majority of all research conducted on IPV is conducted
with people in opposite-sex relationships. Much like transgender people, the needs of people
in same-sex relationships who experience violence are under-researched. In reality, it is thought
that violence in same-sex relationships occurs at similar rates as violence in opposite-sex
relationships (Letellier, 1996). However, the rates of IPV victimisation in same-sex
relationships are likely to be higher than reported, as LGBTQ+ victims are less likely to report
abuse when it occurs; either as a result of not recognising their experience as abuse, or from a
fear of discrimination from support services (Sylaska & Edwards, 2015). Some studies even
state that people in same-sex relationships are at a greater risk of being a victim of IPV, than
people in opposite-sex relationships (Messinger, 2011). Despite this high prevalence of IPV in
same-sex relationships, the individual experiences of these victims are still not fully
understood. In fact, there is a common misconception concerning same-sex IPV which still
stems from the traditional feminist view of relationship violence. It is often thought that
violence in male same-sex relationships is inevitable, because of the perception that most men
are prone to violence, however violence in female same-sex relationships does not occur
because women are not thought to be inherently violent (Merrill, 1996). In reality, violence can
occur in all relationships, regardless of the gender of the people involved, and it tends to occur
at similar rates in female and male same-sex relationships (Carvalho et al., 2011). The idea that
violence does not occur in female same-sex relationships is damaging, as it perpetuates the
invisibility of this victim group, and often results in victims not recognising abuse (Davis &
Glass, 2011).
Similarly, to victims who are transgender and male victims in opposite-sex
relationships, victims in same-sex relationships have unique abuse experiences. Like for
transgender victims, “outing” is a common form of abuse in same-sex relationships, where the
perpetrator threatens to “out” their partner to their family, friends, or place of work (Halpern,
Young, Waller, Martin & Kupper, 2004). In addition to this, the HIV status of men in same-
sex relationships can be a factor in abuse. Letellier (1996) stated that perpetrators who were
HIV-positive often used their ill-health to manipulate the Criminal Justice System to their
advantage, and that victims who were HIV-positive felt their only chance at a relationship was
to stay with their abusive partner. In relation to this, victims of IPV in same-sex relationships
may be at a higher risk of contracting HIV as the prevalence of sexual assault and unprotected
sex (through coercion) is high (Heintz & Melendez, 2006). Much the same as with transgender
victims, people in same-sex relationships experience the same abuse as other victim groups,
but they also encounter abuse that can be targeted at their sexuality. These unique experiences,
and the disparity in the amount of research conducted with each victim group, further
legitimises investigating IPV in an inclusive way across gender and sexuality.
Aim of the Current Systematic Literature Review

Systematic literature reviews use thorough methods of appraising literature and are as rigorous
as high quality primary research projects (Petticrew, 2001). The specific type of systematic
literature review to be used in the current investigation is a systematic mixed studies review,
which incorporates qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies (Pluye & Hong, 2014).
There have been many literature reviews on different areas of IPV victimisation, such as the
experiences of female victims (e.g. Waldrop & Resick, 2004), the effects of male victimisation
(e.g. Randle & Graham, 2011), victims from the LGB community (e.g. West, 2002), and
transgender victims (e.g. Walker, 2015). However, this review is one of the first to investigate
the experience of IPV victimisation across the spectrums of gender and sexuality, using a
systematic approach. It is hoped that this review will also provide an accurate picture of the
literature that currently exists on IPV victimisation across gender sexuality, and will highlight
methodological gaps, as well as the imbalance in research between different victim groups.
The aim of the current systematic literature review was to synthesise the most recent
research on IPV victimisation, across gender and sexuality. The focus of most IPV research is
on female victims in opposite-sex relationships (Morin, 2014). While research on male victims
in opposite-sex relationships is increasing (e.g. Drijber, Reijnders & Ceelen, 2013; Dutton &
White, 2013; Hines et al., 2007; Próspero & Kim, 2009), there is still a dearth of published
articles on victims from the LGB community, or victims who fall under the transgender
umbrella in terms of gender identity (Ard & Makadon, 2011). This lack of research is a concern
when research tends to inform the amount, and quality, of support provided to victims of IPV.
It is also worrying when considering that a large majority of male victims and victims from the
LGBTQ+ community do not recognise their experience as abuse (Donovan & Hester, 2010;
Dutton & White, 2013; The Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010), which in turn means they are
unlikely to respond to campaigns that still maintain that IPV is male-to-female violence. The
main aim for this systematic mixed studies review was to investigate how victims of IPV
experience abuse and what effect does the abuse have. The review also planned to highlight
the prevalence of different victim groups, in terms of gender and sexuality, that appear in
primary research on IPV victimisation.
Method
Search Strategy
All articles were found by searching the CINAHL and PsycARTICLES databases, and by
sifting through reference lists, in July 2016. CINAHL was chosen because it is a database for
health research and it was thought that it would yield articles for the victimisation element of
the search. PsycARTICLES was chosen because it holds journals that are specific to
psychology. Table 1 below demonstrates the rationale for the chosen databases.
Table 1
Rationale for chosen databases
Database Coverage Rationale
PsycARTICLES 1894 to date Full text, peer-reviewed

articles specific to psychology
100,000 articles from 59
journals
CINAHL 1982 to date Health specific database which

will target victimisation
329 full text journals elements
Search concepts were developed according to the aim of the systematic literature review. Three
main concepts were created: Domestic Violence, Sexuality and Gender, and Victimisation.
Keywords for each of these concepts were collated and entered into CINAHL and
PsycARTICLES respectively. Table 2 shows the search concepts and the keywords used in the
systematic searches.
Table 2
Search concepts and keywords used (with appropriate Boolean operators)
Search 1 Concept: Search 2 Concept: Search 3 Concept:
Domestic Violence Sexuality and Gender Victimisation
Subject Heading: Subject Heading: Subject Heading:
In CINAHL: (MM “Domestic In CINAHL: (MH “Sexuality” In CINAHL: (MM “Victims”)

Violence”) and MM “Gender Identity”)
In PsycARTICLES: N/A
In PsycARTICLES: N/A In PsycARTICLES: N/A
Keywords: Keywords: Keywords:
“domestic violence” “same sex” victim*
“intimate partner violence” “same-sex” battered
“partner aggress*” homosexual* patient*
“partner violence” lesbian*
“partner abuse” gay*
“domestic abuse” “opposite sex”
“intimate partner abuse” “opposite-sex”
heterosexual*
straight
LGBT
transgender*
trans
transsexual*
wom?n
female*
wife
wives
male*
husband*
m?n
For each search concept, the keywords and subject headings were entered and combined with
“OR”. Once all three search concepts had been entered, they were combined with “AND” and
the following search limiters were applied: within the past 10 years, full text articles, and peer-
reviewed journal articles. These limiters were chosen in order to look at the most recent
literature, which was fully accessible, and had been peer-reviewed. Peer-reviewed articles were
chosen as they would be more likely to meet the standards of the quality assessment used
(please see Quality Assessment below). This resulted in 1,306 articles from CINAHL and 91
articles from PsycARTICLES. The reference lists of relevant literature reviews were sifted,
which resulted in a further 19 articles. When all three were combined, 1,416 journal articles
were found to be relevant. After removing duplicates this was further reduced to 712 articles.
The abstracts of these remaining journal articles were sifted for relevance (please see Inclusion
Criteria section below) and the remaining articles totalled 373. Finally, these articles were read
through thoroughly to further ascertain their relevance to the aim of the systematic literature
review, resulting in 153 articles. Quality assessment (using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool;
MMAT) was then carried out on each article and articles were excluded on the basis of quality
(see Quality Assessment section below). This resulted in the final number of articles being 106.
Table 3 below illustrates each stage of the search strategy and the resulting amount of hits.
Table 3
Results of the search strategy implemented in July 2016
Database Searches and Number of Results
Literature Search CINAHL PsycARTICLES
Search 1: Domestic violence 14,032 838

(subject heading and keywords
combined with OR)
Search 2: Sexuality and Gender 1,675,704 37,278

(subject headings and
keywords combined with OR)
Search 3: Victimisation 1,186,474 17,791

(subject heading and keywords
combined with OR)
Search 4: 1, 2, and 3 combined 1,306 91

with AND and limited to the
last 10 years, full text articles,
and journal articles
Search 5: Search for relevant 19

literature in reference lists
Combined Relevant Literature 1,416
Relevant After De-duplication 712
Relevant After Abstract Sift 373
Relevant After Inclusion and 153

Exclusion Criteria Applied
Final Articles (after quality 106

assessment)
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Research inclusion was limited to full-text, peer reviewed journal articles published between
2006 and 2016. In order to determine the attention paid to each victim group for IPV, only
articles that were presenting primary research were included. For the same reason, the data
used in each piece of research had to be retrieved exclusively from victims (with the exception
of control groups), rather than being concerned with the general perceptions towards different
victim groups, or being from practitioners who work with victims. The articles had to
investigate the actual experiences of adult IPV victims, even if that was in conjunction with
investigating their perpetration as well, rather than the prevalence rates of IPV. In addition to
this, it was decided that any studies examining the predictors of IPV would be excluded,
meaning that the focus of the review would be the experiences of abuse and the effect abuse
had on victims. All of these inclusion and exclusion criteria combined resulted in journal
articles that, together, represent the experiences of IPV victims from across the gender and
sexuality spectrums.
Quality Assessment
In order to assess the quality of the articles obtained during the search, a quality assessment
tool was used. As the current systematic review was a mixed studies review, the Mixed
Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT; Pluye et al., 2011) was used. The MMAT is designed to
assess the quality of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies concurrently (Pace et
al., 2011). The MMAT was pilot tested with a second reviewer and agreement on scores was
calculated using Cohen’s κ. Fifteen (10%) of the articles were assessed by both reviewers and,
according to Landis and Koch’s (1977) guidelines, there was fair agreement (κ = .352, p < .05).
Disagreements were as a result of the interpretation of the questions on the MMAT. After
discussion, clear agreement was reached on interpretation and the researcher continued the
quality assessment with the remainder of the articles. Each article was scored according to the
MMAT guidelines (Pluye et al., 2011) from one star (low quality) to four stars (high quality).
It was deemed that any article scoring two stars or less would be excluded. The rationale for
this was that it was thought to be important to be accessing accurate experiences of IPV, and
that accurate results would be more likely to be found in higher quality studies. As a result of
this exclusion strategy the original 153 articles were reduced to 106 articles. Results of the
quality assessment can be found in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Results of MMAT quality assessment

Study Type Qualitative Quantitative Mixed Methods Total
Number (%) 21 (13.73%) 128 (83.66%) 4 (2.61%) 153 (100%)
1 star = * (%) - 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 10 (6.54% of

total)
2 star = ** (%) 4 (11.11%) 31 (86.11%) 1 (2.78%) 36 (23.53% of

total)
3 star = *** (%) 9 (12%) 65 (86.67%) 1 (1.33%) 75 (49.02% of

total)
4 star = **** 8 (25.81%) 23 (74.19%) - 31 (20.26% of

(%) total)
No. Included 17 (16.04%) 88 (83.02%) 1 (0.94%) 106 (69.28% of

(%) total)
No. Excluded 4 (8.51%) 40** (85.11%) 3 (6.38%) 47 (30.72 % of

(%) total)
**one paper scored 0, so does not appear on star ratings, but was excluded
Analytic Strategy
Data extraction was conducted on the 106 articles that resulted from the quality assessment. In
order to review the articles in a critical manner, details of the methodology of the articles were
focused on, in addition to the actual findings of the studies (a summary of data extraction can
be found in Appendix 1). During data extraction, a further six articles were excluded, as on
further examination they did not adhere to the inclusion and exclusion criteria outlined earlier.
This resulted in the final number of articles being 100, on which analysis was conducted. The
final articles were examined for themes that appeared across the data extraction set, both in
terms of methodology (e.g. sample, design, methodology, measures) and findings (experiences
of IPV victims). As well as overarching themes, unique findings were highlighted where
appropriate to the review question. The current review utilised qualitative analysis only,
because of the heterogeneity of the study methodologies and outcome measures.
Results
In total 100 articles were included in the final data extraction and analysis and were reviewed
in a critical manner. The following section presents the themes that appear across the 100
articles, and highlights some aspects that are more unique and may have only appeared in a
few of the articles reviewed. The first part of this section describes the results in terms of the
methodologies and samples used in the articles. The second part of this section discusses the
findings of the reviewed articles in terms of the experiences of IPV victims.
Methodology and Sample
As highlighted earlier in the quality assessment section, the majority of studies reviewed were
quantitative in nature (the exact figures for this can be seen in Table 5 below).
Table 5
Results by Methodology of Study (total articles = 100)
Methodology Quantitative Qualitative Mixed Methods
Number of articles 83 16 1
% of articles 83% 16% 1%

In comparison to the number of quantitative studies, the number of qualitative and mixed
methods studies is extremely low, especially mixed methods studies (n = 1). This implies that
the majority of the studies within this review are not accessing detailed individual experiences
of victimisation. This is further supported by the high number of quantitative, cross-sectional
(n = 67) studies that are included. Cross-sectional research is unlikely to access individual
abuse experiences and is also unlikely to be able to capture the long-term effects of that abuse.
As a result of the weighting towards quantitative research in the reviewed articles, the majority
of this section focuses on aspects of quantitative methodology and sampling.
In terms of how the studies captured IPV victimisation, some only measured IPV
generally (e.g. Brown, Weitzen & Lapane, 2013; Williams, Wyatt, Myers, Green & Warda,
2008; Zahn et al., 2012), whereas others measured different forms of IPV victimisation (e.g.
Chan & Zhang, 2011; Cripe, Sanchez, Gelaye, Sanchez & Williams, 2011; Pantalone,
Schneider, Valentine & Simoni, 2012). Even studies that measured different types of abuse
only looked at sexual, physical, and psychological abuse, which excludes other types such as,
coercive control, and financial and legal abuse. Even then, psychological abuse was relatively
uncommon in the measurement of abuse in the reviewed articles (n = 28), which is worrying
as studies that did measure it often found it was the most common type of abuse experienced
(e.g. Sabina & Straus, 2008; Siemieniuk et al., 2013). In addition to this, only three studies
(Hines & Douglas, 2011; Hines & Douglas, 2016; Lawrence, Yoon, Langer & Ro, 2009)
differentiated between different types of psychological, such as controlling behaviours. Again,
limiting how IPV victimisation is measured in this way, may also limit how accurately it can
be assessed, and does not account for someone experiencing multiple different types of abuse,
and how different types of abuse can interact with each other. Also, if abuse is not consistently
measured across studies, drawing wider conclusions about how abuse is experienced becomes
difficult.
The different measurement tools used to examine IPV victimisation may explain some
of the differences observed . Some studies used very short measures of IPV victimisation (e.g.
Eaton et al., 2008; Kim, Park & Emery, 2009), with some even only using one question to
assess it (e.g. Kunst, Bogaerts & Winkel, 2010). This again relates to the accessibility of
victimisation experiences, as it is unlikely that these simplistic measures can access the
complexity that is IPV victimisation. The studies that used more complex measures of IPV
victimisation usually either used a version of the Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1979; Straus,
Hamby, Boney-McCoy & Sugarman, 1996; e.g. Clements & Ogle, 2007; Flanagan, Gordon,
Moore & Stuart, 2015; Hellmuth, Gordon, Moore & Stuart, 2014) or a measure that has been
especially developed for use with female victims of IPV, such as the Women’s Experience of
Battering scale or questions from the WHO Multicountry Study on Women’s Health and
Domestic Violence (e.g. Bonomi, Anderson, Rivara & Thompson, 2007; Eldoseri, Tufts,
Zhang & Fish, 2014; Johri et al., 2011). The measures that are especially designed for use with
female victims may be restricted when measuring male victims’ experiences and also the
experiences of victims from the LGBTQ+ community. The Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus,
1979) and its various versions has long been deemed a reliable way of measuring both IPV
victimisation and perpetration, however it may be limited when measuring specific abuse
experiences related to LGBTQ+ relationships, such as “outing” (Halpern et al., 2004) or using
a person’s gender identity against them (Brown, 2011). In addition to the lack of inclusivity,
not all studies use the Conflict Tactics Scale in the same way. Some examine the individual
subscales of the measure (e.g. Desmarais, Pritchard, Lowder & Janssen, 2014; Flanagan et al.,
2015), which gives a more detailed view of IPV victimisation. However, some research only
uses some of the subscales (e.g. Beeble, Bybee & Sullivan, 2007; Crane, Pilver & Weinberger,
2014), and other studies use a complete score of IPV calculated from all of the subscales (e.g.
Clements & Ogle, 2007; Crouch, Thomsen, Milner, Stander & Merrill, 2009). This implies that
the Conflict Tactics Scale is not always utilised in a standardised way across all research.
The lack of consistency in measurement tool selection or implementation procedure
coupled with the sampling and recruitment strategies may influence the conclusions that can
be drawn from this review. There were many studies that utilised data collected for other, often
larger, research projects (e.g. Gao et al., 2010; Martinez-Torteya, Bogat, von Eye, Levendosky
& Davidson, 2009; Williams et al., 2008). This may be problematic as the participants were
not recruited for the purpose of the current study, and therefore, the sample may not be
appropriate for accurately accessing the experiences of IPV victims. When samples were
purposefully recruited for the study, they were often recruited from help-seeking populations,
such as shelter residents or community support users (e.g. Cerulli, Poleshuck, Raimondi, Veale
& Chin, 2012; Clements & Ogle, 2007; Eisikovits & Band-Winterstein, 2015). This excludes
victims of IPV who do not seek help and also eliminates the option of investigating whether
there are differences between those who seek help and those who do not.
In terms of the gender of the participants, the most common type of sample in the
reviewed studies was made up of women in opposite-sex relationships (70%). Full details of
the studies by gender and sexuality can be seen in Table 6 below.

Table 6
Results by Gender and Sexuality of Sample (total articles = 100)
Sample Number of articles % of articles
Women in opposite sex relationships only 70 70%
Men in opposite sex relationships only 4 4%
Opposite sex couples only 3 3%
Women and men in opposite sex relationships 12 12%
Women and men in both opposite and same sex 2 2%

relationships
LGBTQ+ 3 3%
Sexual minority women and men 1 1%
Sexual minority women only 2 2%
Sexual minority men only 3 3%
In fact, there were only seven studies that focused on the IPV victimisation experiences of men
only, and there were no studies in the current review that looked specifically at victims who
were transgender. Transgender victimisation was included, but it was amalgamated into studies
that looked at the experiences of LGBTQ+ victims in general (e.g. Bornstein, Fawcett,
Sullivan, Senturia & Shiu-Thornton, 2006; Reuter, Newcomb, Whitton & Mustanski, 2016;
Whitton, Newcomb, Messinger, Byck & Mustanski, 2016). Studies that looked at male and
female victims in the same analysis were not common, and when men and women were both
included in a study, those studies tended to be conducted in Western countries (e.g. Ackerman
& Field, 2011; DiBello, Preddy, Øverup & Neighbors, 2016; Kunst et al., 2010). This would
imply that there may be cultural differences in the way that IPV is perceived by both the general
public and researchers. In terms of the qualitative studies that were included in the current
review, most of them were conducted with female samples (e.g. Bostock, Plumpton & Pratt,
2009; Cerulli et al., 2012); meaning the in-depth individual experiences of men and some
members of the LGBTQ+ community may not be fully supported in the literature.
Regarding the sexuality of the samples used in the studies included in the current
review, the majority were conducted with individuals in opposite-sex relationships. In fact,
where couples were recruited, every study looked at opposite-sex relationships only (e.g.
Lawrence et al., 2009; Renner, Habib, Stromquist & Peek-Asa, 2014; Scott & Babcock, 2010).
In addition to this, some studies included people in same-sex relationships, however, it
sometimes felt like they were not purposefully recruited as there were often not enough
participants to justify the analysis (e.g. Ackerman & Field, 2011), or sexuality was not included
within the analysis at all (e.g. Anderson, Dial, Ivey & Smith, 2011). In terms of how
participants were recruited for studies, some sampling methods for the LGBTQ+ community
could be considered somewhat unethical. Some researchers utilised a street-intercept method
(e.g. Bimbi, Palmadessa & Parsons, 2007) which may not be completely anonymous, and
others recruited their participants from HIV clinics (e.g. Pantalone, Hessler & Simoni, 2010;
Pantalone et al., 2012; Siemieniuk et al., 2013) which may unintentionally perpetuate the
stigma associated with HIV in the LGBTQ+ community.
Victimisation Experiences
As well as common themes in terms of methodology and sample, there were also similarities
when looking at the experiences of IPV victims in the studies. When examining the effects of
IPV in general, all aspects of victims’ lives were impacted. The types of abuse demonstrated
in the studies included in this review were physical, emotional, sexual, social and financial,
among others; the effects of these different types of abuse were accordingly wide-ranging. In
addition to this, in some studies it appeared that where different types of abuse were
experienced together, the effects of that abuse were worse (e.g. Bonomi et al., 2007; Desmarais
et al., 2014; Exner-Cortens, Eckenrode & Rothman, 2013), suggesting a cumulative effect.
When couples were recruited for the study, bidirectional abuse was often found (e.g. Lawrence
et al., 2009; Renner et al., 2014) suggesting that abuse within a relationship does not always
have defined victim and perpetrator roles. These two findings alone have significant
implications for interventions and support services for IPV.
Some of the most commonly researched effects of IPV victimisation were centred
around the impact abuse has on the mental health of victims. IPV victimisation had a negative
impact on mental health outcomes, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD; e.g. Dardis,
Amoroso & Iverson, 2016; Desmarais et al., 2014; Fedovskiy, Higgins & Paranjape, 2008),
depression (e.g. Gomez-Beloz, Williams, Sanchez & Lam, 2009; Hines & Douglas, 2016;
Hughes, Cangiano & Hopper, 2011), anxiety (e.g. Cerulli et al., 2012; Clements & Ogle, 2007),
suicidal thoughts (e.g. Ali, Mogren & Krantz, 2013; Exner-Cortens et al., 2013), eating
disorders (e.g. Lacey, Sears, Matsuko & Jackson, 2015; Svavarsdottir & Orlygsdottir, 2009),
social connectedness (e.g. Bonomi et al., 2007; Cerulli et al., 2012), and loneliness (e.g.
Eisikovits & Band-Winterstein, 2015; Kunst & van Bon-Martens, 2011). In addition to these
mental health outcomes, it was found that IPV victimisation also negatively affected
relationship satisfaction (e.g. Ackerman & Field, 2011; DiBello et al., 2016). Finally, one
mental health outcome that was only associated with female IPV victims was postnatal
depression (e.g. Gao, Paterson, Abbott, Carter & Iusitini, 2010; Hellmuth et al., 2014). In fact,
throughout all the articles reviewed the most predominant mental health outcomes investigated
were PTSD (n = 24) and depression/postnatal depression (n = 41).
While the mental health outcomes of IPV victimisation were well documented, so were
the physical health outcomes. Experiencing IPV victimisation can have direct physical
outcomes, such as injury (e.g. Cerulli et al., 2012; Eldoseri et al., 2014; Hines & Douglas, 2016;
Hines & Douglas, 2011; Weaver, Resnick, Kokoska & Etzel, 2007) and sexually transmitted
infections (STIs; e.g. Sormanti & Shibusawa, 2008). However, some physical health outcomes
can be less direct, such as migraine (e.g. Cripe et al., 2011), sexual issues (e.g. Akyüz, Sahiner
& Bakir, 2008; Crouch et al., 2009; Hellemans, Loeys, Buysse, Dewaele & De Smet, 2015),
low health related quality of life (HRQoL; e.g. Pantalone et al., 2010; Pantalone et al., 2012;
Svavarsdottir, Orlygsdottir & Gudmundsdottir, 2015), and HIV complications (e.g. Siemieniuk
et al., 2013). In addition to these effects, women also experienced pregnancy complications as
a result of IPV victimisation. Some of these complications included low birth weight (e.g.
Shneyderman, & Kiely, 2013), miscarriage (e.g. Johri et al., 2011), and excessive bleeding (e.g.
Rahman, Nakamura, Seino & Kizuki, 2013). These pregnancy effects relate to the findings of
some studies that state that IPV continues throughout women’s pregnancies (e.g. Das et al.,
2013; Desmarais et al., 2014; Flanagan et al., 2015). As well as physical health outcomes, the
reviewed articles revealed that some of the effects of IPV victimisation can be behavioural. In
particular, it appeared that IPV victimisation was associated with certain risky health
behaviours, such as substance misuse (e.g. Bimbi et al., 2007; de Dios, Anderson, Caviness &
Stein, 2014; Gilbert, El-Bassel, Chang, Wu & Roy, 2012), smoking (e.g. Crane et al., 2014;
Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Rhodes et al., 2009), and alcohol abuse (e.g. DiBello et al., 2016;
Eaton et al., 2008; Gao et al., 2010).
While the previous themes were relatively common across the reviewed articles, some
important points were dependent on the characteristics of the participants involved. There may
be some differences in experiences according to the culture that the research was conducted in.
Some studies that were conducted in cultures with less gender empowerment indicated that
female victims believed that IPV was justified in some way (e.g. Das et al., 2013), did not seek
help for abuse as often (e.g. Eldoseri et al., 2014), and tolerated abuse as a result of societal
norms (e.g. Hayati, Eriksson, Hakimi, Högberg & Emmelin, 2013). In terms of gender in
relation to IPV experiences, in the studies where men and women were included in the analysis
together, similar experiences of victimisation tended to be found (e.g. Ackerman & Field, 2011;
Lawrence et al., 2009; Sabina & Straus, 2008). Studies that included the experiences of
transgender people indicated that they were more likely to experience abuse than cisgender
people (e.g. Reuter et al., 2016; Whitton et al., 2016). Regarding sexuality, one study, included
in the current review, suggested that people in same-sex relationships report similar levels of
IPV victimisation as people in opposite-sex relationships (e.g. Hellemans et al., 2015), and
others concluded that IPV victimisation is more prevalent in the LGBTQ+ community than in
opposite sex relationships and for cisgender people (e.g. Bimbi et al., 2007; Reuter et al., 2016;
Whitton et al., 2016). Finally, there were some effects of IPV that may be unique to the
LGBTQ+ community, such as difficulty recognising abuse, lack of LGBTQ+ community
awareness of IPV, isolation from the LGBTQ+ community, and experiencing marginalisation
in multiple forms (e.g. Bornstein et al., 2006; Whitton et al., 2016). One study highlighted that
these effects of IPV may be more pronounced in people who identify as bisexual or transgender
as they can often be marginalised within the LGBTQ+ community itself (Bornstein et al.,
2006), suggesting that even within the LGBTQ+ community there may be differences in
experiences.
Discussion
The overarching aim of the current systematic review was to synthesise the current research on
IPV victimisation experiences, across gender and sexuality. The secondary aim of the review
was to highlight the prevalence of different victim groups in the current literature. By doing
this it was hoped that the main research aim would be addressed of how victims of IPV
experience abuse and what effect does that abuse have. The findings of the current systematic
literature review were separated into two sections: methodology and sample, and victimisation
experiences. This was deemed necessary as many methodological and sampling issues were
highlighted while attempting to answer the research question concerning the experiences of
IPV victims.
In terms of methodology the main finding was that the majority of studies (n = 83)
included in the review were conducted using quantitative methods, and of these quantitative
studies, most were cross-sectional in nature (n = 67). Quantitative research tends to be more
common generally, especially in psychology (Rennie, Watson & Monteiro, 2002), however it
is important to investigate phenomena qualitatively in order to understand them in more detail.
Another theme that emerged from the review was that a lot of research is limited in the way
that abuse is measured, both in the types of abuse investigated and in the measures that are used
to capture abuse experiences. Only a small number of the studies included in the review
specifically examined psychological abuse, which is of concern when those that did include it
stated that it was the most common form of relationship abuse (e.g. Sabina & Straus, 2008;
Siemieniuk et al., 2013). In addition to this, some of the typical measures used in IPV
victimisation research may not be appropriate for all victim groups, either because they are
designed for use with female victims, or because they do not capture some of the abuse that
male victims or victims form the LGBTQ+ community experience.
In terms of the samples and sampling techniques used in the studies in the review, the
majority of the research was conducted with female victims in opposite-sex relationships (n =
70). In contrast to this, seven studies looked exclusively at male victims of IPV and 11 studies
involved participants from the LGBTQ+ community. There were no studies in the current
review that looked exclusively at transgender victims of IPV. It is more than likely that this
heavy weighting towards female victims in opposite-sex relationships is as a result of the
traditional view of IPV as male-to-female relationship abuse (Graham-Kevan, 2007). In

addition to this, Western countries were more likely to have conducted research that moved
away from this traditional view, and countries where there is less empowerment for women
focussed on violence against women, possibly meaning that less gender equality could result
in more violence against women from men (Eldoseri et al., 2014). Finally, in terms of
methodological and sampling themes, many research studies recruited from help-seeking
populations. This excludes victims who have not accessed mainstream support services, or
victims who do not recognise their experience as abuse, for example, some male victims or
victims from the LGBTQ+ community (Donovan & Hester, 2010; Dutton & White, 2013; The
Scottish Trans Alliance, 2010). Also, it is probable that some male victims, or victims from the
LGBTQ+ community, do not attempt to access support, as appropriate support is not as
mainstream as support services for female victims (Walker, 2015).
As well as themes centring around the methodologies and sampling of the research
studies included in the review, an examination of the victimisation experiences of the
participants yielded several themes as well. First of all, while the effects of any type of
relationship abuse were significant, it was found that multiple types of abuse have a cumulative
effect. This is important when considering that it is likely that someone will experience more
than one type of IPV (Garcia-Morero et al., 2006). When generally looking at the effect that
IPV has on victims, the findings revealed that victims can suffer from a multitude of different
mental and physical issues as a result of the abuse they experience. The most commonly
reported negative mental health outcomes of IPV were PTSD and depression or postnatal
depression. In terms of negative physical health outcomes, the most researched issues tended
to be injury and health related quality of life. It appeared that there were far more negative
mental health outcomes than negative physical health outcomes, which could imply that they
may have a more significant and long-lasting effect. When looking specifically at women,
many of the studies included in the review investigated pregnancy complications that women
can experience as a result of IPV.
With the exception of pregnancy complications, when women and men were compared
on IPV victimisation they appeared to have similar experiences. However, while this highlights
that IPV can be experienced by anyone, it may not be appropriate to compare men and women
in this way as they are likely to conceptualise IPV victimisation differently, (Hines & Malley-
Morrison, 2001) with men externalising distress and women internalising distress Afifi et al.,
2009); therefore, such a comparison may not be accessing victimisation experiences accurately.
The little data that was available on transgender victims indicated that they are more likely to
experience relationship abuse than cisgender people. Similarly, people in same-sex
relationships are often found to be more at risk of experiencing IPV than people in opposite-
sex relationships. In both cases, it is probable that this is as a result of these populations being
more vulnerable because of the marginalisation that they can often experience in daily life
(Lombardi, Wilchins, Priesing & Malouf, 2001; Scourfield, Roen & McDermott, 2008).
Finally, it is important to note that the unique experiences of male victims and victims from
the LGBTQ+ community were occasionally highlighted, however, not enough to be able to
understand their experiences fully. When considering the research question for this review, it
can be answered on behalf of female victims in opposite-sex relationships, but not on behalf of
more underrepresented victim groups.
Limitations
Whilst significantly contributing to knowledge, the current systematic literature review has
limitations. Firstly, the search strategy only utilised two databases to access research articles.
Including databases from other disciplines may have yielded more varied findings than those
presented here. However, the two databases were chosen specifically for their relevance to the
research question and to the subject discipline of the review. Secondly, the date range applied
to the search results (2006-2016) may have been too restrictive, resulting in the exclusion of
time periods where research with certain populations may have peaked (e.g. Steinmetz’s (1977)
work on “The Battered Husband Syndrome). On a practical level, the date range was
implemented in order to keep the number of articles manageable. In addition to this, it was
decided that it was important to restrict the review to the most recent research available, in
order for the conclusions reached to be relevant to current practice in the field of IPV. Thirdly,
the fact that the current systematic review was a mixed studies review meant there was no
opportunity to include any quantitative analysis (e.g. meta-analysis). On reflection, this would
not have been entirely appropriate anyway, as a result of the heterogeneity of the study
methodologies and samples. Finally, there was only fair agreement between reviewers on the
chosen quality assessment tool (MMAT), which could have had an effect on the number and
type of articles that were then included in the final review. While this bias could not be
completely avoided, this level of agreement was as a result of differing interpretation of the
criteria, which was addressed in discussion between the two reviewers. After the discussion of
the criteria, agreement was reached on interpretation.
Future Directions
The main issue arising from the current systematic review is that some IPV victim groups are
significantly underrepresented in the literature. It is important, moving forward, that male
victims and victims from the LGBTQ+ community are included more often in IPV research.
Initially, in-depth studies for each victim group would be useful in order to understand more
fully how these groups experience abuse. However, this should be extended in the future so
that studies into IPV include all gender and sexuality victim groups so that IPV is investigated
in an inclusive way. Without this representation the traditional feminist viewpoint, that men
are perpetrators and women are victims, will be further perpetuated. In particular, the
experiences of transgender victims of IPV need to be investigated more thoroughly, as there is
very little research available on this particular victim group. Furthermore, researching IPV in
a more gender and sexuality inclusive way would further assist in this shift away from
traditional conceptualisations of IPV, by acknowledging that all incidents of IPV have the
common theme of being violence within a relationship, rather than being driven by gender
norms or patriarchy. When considering the high proportion of quantitative research that was
present in the current review, an increase in the amount of qualitative research conducted with
IPV victims would be welcome. Quantitative research merely highlights prevalence rates,
group differences, and outcomes associated with IPV victimisation experiences. Qualitative
research is more likely to yield data that highlights types of abuse not previously investigated
or the individual experiences and voices of IPV victims. Finally, the field of IPV victimisation
research would be improved by measures being developed or adapted to include unique forms
of abuse that may be experienced by different victim groups. This would ensure that
victimisation experiences would be accessed accurately and effectively.
Implications
The implications of the findings of this systematic review are significant. First of all, victim
groups such as male victims and victims from the LGBTQ+ community are neglected in the
literature which may result in researchers themselves being unaware of their existence. This is
likely to further support the traditional male-to-female relationship violence viewpoint. In
addition to this, it is probable that research informs the amount and type of support that is
available to victims of IPV. The heavy weighting towards female victims in the literature has
possibly resulted in the uneven distribution of IPV victim support services (Walker, 2015).
This disparity in the provision of support services could also be as a result of the political focus
on preventing violence against women, especially in the UK with the governments Ending
Violence against Women and Girls Strategy (HM Government, 2016). Finally, because the
experiences of under researched victim groups are not readily available, it is unlikely that, when
a male victim or a victim from the LGBTQ+ community does try to access support, the services
are not adequate enough to support them and understand their unique experiences of abuse.
With an increase in the amount of research that is conducted on underrepresented victim
groups, the result will hopefully be that a greater number of victims can be helped and
supported.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the current systematic review has highlighted the distinct and significant effect
IPV can have on victims, both mentally and physically. It has also emphasised the need for
further improvement on the current literature base. The large majority of research used
quantitative research methods and samples of female victims in opposite-sex relationships.
This results in the investigation of rich individual experiences and certain victim groups, such
as male victims and victims from the LGBTQ+ community, being underrepresented. This in
turn has the effect of marginalising a significant number of IPV victims, and ensures that the
traditional view of IPV being male-to-female abuse is perpetuated. In terms of the research
question, it is evident that the experiences of abuse, and the effect that abuse has on victims,
can only be answered on behalf of female victims. In order to answer this question for all victim
groups, across gender and sexuality, much more research needs to be conducted. It is important
that the full spectrum of gender and sexuality be included in IPV research, as this will hopefully
in turn result in greater resources being available to victim support services in order to support
every victim of IPV, regardless of their gender or sexuality.

References
Ackerman, J., & Field, L. (2011). The gender asymmetric effect of intimate partner violence
on relationship satisfaction. Violence & Victims, 26(6), 703-724.
Addis, M. & Mahalik, J. (2003). Men, masculinity, and the contexts of help seeking.
American Psychologist, 58(1), 5-14 doi: 10.1037/0003-066X
Afifi, T., MacMillan, H., Cox, B., Asmundson, G., Stein, M. & Sareen, J. (2009). Mental
health correlates of intimate partner violence in marital relationships in a nationally
representative sample of males and females. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(8),
1398-1417 doi: 10.1177/0886260508322192
Akyüz, A., Şahiner, G., & Bakir, B. (2008). Marital violence: Is it a factor affecting the
reproductive health status of women?. Journal of Family Violence, 23(6), 437-445.
Ali, T. S., Mogren, I., & Krantz, G. (2013). Intimate partner violence and mental health
effects: A population-based study among married women in Karachi, Pakistan.
International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 20(1), 131-139.
Anderson, A., Dial, S., Ivey, D., & Smith, D. (2011). Gender and violence in dyadic
relationships. American Journal of Family Therapy, 39(3), 242-254.
doi:10.1080/01926187.2010.532000
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-
analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651-680 doi: 10.1037//0033-
2909.126.5.651
Ard, K. & Makadon, H. (2011). Addressing intimate partner violence in lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 26 (8). 630-
633. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6
Bimbi, D. S., Palmadessa, N. A., & Parsons, J. T. (2008). Substance use and domestic
violence among urban gays, lesbians and bisexuals. Journal of LGBT Health
Research, 3(2), 1-7.
Bonomi, A., Anderson, M., Rivara, F., & Thompson, R. (2007). Health Outcomes in Women
with Physical and Sexual Intimate Partner Violence Exposure. Journal of Women's
Health, 16(7), 987-997. doi:10.1089/jwh.2006.0239
Bornstein, D., Fawcett, J., Sullivan, M., Senturia, K. & Shiu-Thornton, S. (2006).
Understanding the experiences of lesbian, bisexual and trans survivors of domestic
violence. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(1), 159-181. doi: 10.1300/J082v51n01_08
Bostock, J., Plumpton, M., & Pratt, R. (2009). Domestic violence against women:
understanding social processes and women's experiences. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 19(2), 95-110.
Brown, N. (2011). Holding tensions of victimisation and perpetration: Partner abuse in trans
communities. In J. Ristock (Ed.), Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ Lives (pp.
153-168). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Brown, M. J., Weitzen, S., & Lapane, K. L. (2013). Association between intimate partner
violence and preventive screening among women. Journal of Women's Health,
22(11), 947-952. doi:10.1089/jwh.2012.4222

Browne, A. (1993) Violence against women by male partners: Prevalence, outcomes and
policy implications. American Psychologist, 48 (10), 1077-1087, doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.48.10.1077
Campbell, J. C. (2002) Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet, 359, 1331-
1336, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8
Carney, M., Buttell, F. & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate partner
violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 12, 108-115
Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011).
Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal
of Family Violence, 26(7), 501-509. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9384-2
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Intimate Partner Violence. Retrieved on
7th June 2017 from
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html
Cerulli, C., Poleshuck, E., Raimondi, C., Veale, S., & Chin, N. (2012). 'What fresh hell is this?'
Victims of intimate partner violence describe their experiences of abuse, pain, and
depression. Journal of Family Violence, 27(8), 773-781. doi:10.1007/s10896-012-
9469-6
Chan, K. L., & Zhang, Y. (2011). Female victimization and intimate partner violence after the
May 12, 2008, Sichuan earthquake. Violence & Victims, 26(3), 364-376.
doi:10.1891/0886-6708.26.3.364
Cho, H. & Wilke, D. (2010). Gender differences in the nature of the intimate partner violence
and effects of perpetrator arrest on revictimisation. Journal of Family Violence, 25,
393-400.
Clements, C., & Ogle, R. (2007). A comparison study of coping, family problem-solving and
emotional status in victims of domestic violence. Journal of Psychological Trauma,
6(1), 29-37.
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Bethea, L., King, M. R. & McKeown, R. E. (2000) Physical
Health Consequences of Physical and Psychological Intimate Partner Violence.
Archives of Family Medicine, 9(5), 451-457, doi: 10.1001/archfami.9.5.451
Crane, C. A., Pilver, C. E., & Weinberger, A. H. (2014). Cigarette smoking among intimate
partner violence perpetrators and victims: findings from the National Epidemiologic
Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. The American Journal on Addictions,
23(5), 493-501.
Cripe, S. M., Sanchez, S. E., Gelaye, B., Sanchez, E., & Williams, M. A. (2011). Association
between intimate partner violence, migraine and probable migraine. The Journal of
Head & Face Pain, 51(2), 208-219. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4610.2010.01777.x
Crouch, J. L., Thomsen, C. J., Milner, J. S., Stander, V. A., & Merrill, L. L. (2009).
Heterosexual intimate partner violence among Navy personnel: Gender differences in
incidence and consequences. Military Psychology, 21(S2), 1-15
Dardis, C. M., Amoroso, T., & Iverson, K. M. (2017). Intimate partner stalking:
Contributions to PTSD symptomatology among a national sample of women veterans.
Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(S1).

Das, S., Bapat, U., More, N. S., Alcock, G., Joshi, W., Pantvaidya, S., & Osrin, D. (2013).
Intimate partner violence against women during and after pregnancy: a cross-sectional
study in Mumbai slums. BMC Public Health, 13(1), 817.
Davis, K. & Glass, N. (2011). Reframing the heteronormative constructions of lesbian partner
violence. In J. Ristock (Ed.), Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ Lives (pp. 153-
168). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
de Dios, M. A., Anderson, B. J., Caviness, C. M., & Stein, M. (2014). Intimate partner
violence among individuals in methadone maintenance treatment. Substance Abuse,
35(2), 190-193.
Dennison, S. & Thompson, C. (2011). Intimate partner violence: The effect of gender and
contextual factors on community perceptions of harm, and suggested victim and
criminal justice responses. Violence and Victims, 26 (3), 347-363.
Desmarais, S. L., Pritchard, A., Lowder, E. M., & Janssen, P. A. (2014). Intimate partner
abuse before and during pregnancy as risk factors for postpartum mental health
problems. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 14(1), 132.
DiBello, A. M., Preddy, T. M., Øverup, C. S., & Neighbors, C. (2017). Understanding the
context of romantic partner relational victimization: Links between relationship
satisfaction, depressive symptoms, and alcohol-related problems. Psychology of
Violence, 7(4), 543-552. doi:10.1037/vio0000064
Dobash, R. P., Dobash, R. E., Wilson, M. & Daly, M. (1992). The myth of sexual symmetry
in marital violence. Social Problems, 39(1), 71-91.

Donovan, C. & Hester, M. (2010). ‘I hate the word “victim”’: An exploration of recognition
of domestic violence in same sex relationships. Social Policy and Society, 9(2), 279-
289 doi: 10.1017/S1474746409990406
Drijber, B., Reijnders, U. & Ceelen, M. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. Journal
of Family Violence, 28, 173-178 doi: 10.1007/s10896-012-9482-9
Dutton, D. & White, K. (2013). Male victims of domestic violence. New Male Studies: An
International Journal, 2(1), 5-17
Eaton, L., Kaufman, M., Fuhrel, A., Cain, D., Cherry, C., Pope, H., & Kalichman, S. C.
(2008). Examining factors co-existing with interpersonal violence in lesbian
relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 23(8), 697-705.
Eisikovits, Z., & Band-Winterstein, T. (2015). Dimensions of suffering among old and young
battered women. Journal of Family Violence, 30(1), 49-62. doi:10.1007/s10896-014-
9655-9
Eldoseri, H. M., Tufts, K. A., Zhang, Q., & Fish, J. N. (2014). Adverse health effects of
spousal violence among women attending Saudi Arabian primary health-care clinics.
Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal, 20(11), 717-725.
Exner-Cortens, D., Eckenrode, J., & Rothman, E. (2013). Longitudinal associations between
teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1),
71-78.
Fedovskiy, K., Higgins, S., & Paranjape, A. (2008). Intimate partner violence: how does it
impact major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder among immigrant
Latinas?. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 10(1), 45-51.

Ferguson, C. (2011). Love is a battlefield: Risk factors and gender disparities for domestic
violence among Mexican Americans. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 20, 227-236 doi: 10.1080/10926771.2011.546829
Flanagan, J. C., Gordon, K. C., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2015). Women’s stress,
depression, and relationship adjustment profiles as they relate to intimate partner
violence and mental health during pregnancy and postpartum. Psychology of Violence,
5(1), 66-73. doi:10.1037/a0036895
FORGE. (2011). Transgender & SOFFA Domestic Violence/Sexual Assault Resource Sheet.
Retrieved on 6th June 2017 from www.forge-forward.org/publications-resources/anti-
violence-publications/page/7/
Gao, W., Paterson, J., Abbott, M., Carter, S., & Iusitini, L. (2010). Pacific Islands Families
Study: intimate partner violence and postnatal depression. Journal of Immigrant &
Minority Health, 12(2), 242-248. doi:10.1007/s10903-008-9190-y
Gao, W., Paterson, J., Abbott, M., Carter, S., Iusitini, L., & McDonald-Sundborn, G. (2010).
Impact of current and past intimate partner violence on maternal mental health and
behaviour at 2 years after childbirth: evidence from the Pacific Islands Families Study.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 44(2), 174-182.
doi:10.3109/00048670903487126
Garcia-Morero, C., Jansen, H., Ellsberg, M. Heise, L. & Watts, C. (2006). Prevalence of
intimate partner violence: Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s
health and domestic violence. Lancet, 368, 1260-1269 doi: 10.1016/S0140-
6736(06)69523-8
Gilbert, L., El-Bassel, N., Chang, M., Wu, E., Roy, L., Gilbert, L., & ... Roy, L. (2012).
Substance use and partner violence among urban women seeking emergency care.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 26(2), 226-235. doi:10.1037/a0025869
Goldberg, J. (2003). Trans People in the Criminal Justice System: A Guide for Criminal Justice
Personnel. Retrieved on 7th June 2017 from
http://www.jibc.ca/search/gss/trans%20people%20criminal%20justce
Gomez-Beloz, A., Williams, M., Sanchez, S., & Lam, N. (2009). Intimate partner violence and
risk for depression among postpartum women in Lima, Peru. Violence & Victims, 24(3),
380-398.
Graham-Kevan, N. (2007). Domestic violence: research and implications for batterer
programmes in Europe. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 13, 213-
225.
Grose, S. & Cabrera, G. (2011). Intimate partner violence: Psychological aspects. Cinahl
Information Systems.
Halpern, C., Young, M., Waller, M., Martin, L. & Kupper, L. (2004). Prevalence of partner
violence in same-sex romantic and sexual relationships in a national sample of
adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 35(2), 124-131.
Hayati, E., Eriksson, M., Hakimi, M., Högberg, U., & Emmelin, M. (2013). ‘Elastic band
strategy’: women's lived experience of coping with domestic violence in rural
Indonesia. Global Health Action, 6(1), 1-12
Heintz, A. & Melendez, R. (2006). Intimate partner violence and HIV/STD risk among
lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,
21(2), 193-208
Hellemans, S., Loeys, T., Buysse, A., Dewaele, A., & De Smet, O. (2015). Intimate partner
violence victimization among non-heterosexuals: prevalence and associations with
mental and sexual well-being. Journal of Family Violence, 30(2), 171-188.
Hellmuth, J. C., Gordon, K. C., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2014). The moderating effect
of women's alcohol misuse on the relationship between intimate partner violence
victimization and postpartum depression. American Journal on Addictions, 23(6),
613-615. doi:10.1111/j.1521-0391.2014.12137.x
Hines, D. A., Brown, J. & Dunning, E. (2007) Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse
helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 63-72, doi:10.1007/s10896-006-
9052-0.
Hines, D. & Douglas, E. (2010). A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by
women. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 286-313 doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.1.3.286
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2011). Symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder in men
who sustain intimate partner violence: A study of helpseeking and community
samples. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(2), 112-127. doi:10.1037/a0022983
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2016). Relative influence of various forms of partner
violence on the health of male victims: Study of a help seeking sample. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 17(1), 3-16.
Hines, D., Douglas, E. & Berger, J. (2015). A self-report measure of legal and administrative
aggression within intimate relationships. Aggressive Behavior, 41, 295-309 doi:
10.1002/ab.21540
Hines, D. & Malley-Morrison, K. (2001). Psychological effects of partner abuse against men:
A neglected research area. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2(2), 75-85

HM Government. (2016). Ending violence against women and girls. Retrieved 26th March
2018 from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/strategy-to-end-violence-
against-women-and-girls-2016-to-2020
Hughes, H. M., Cangiano, C., & Hopper, E. K. (2011). Profiles of distress in sheltered
battered women: Implications for intervention. Violence and Victims, 26(4), 445-460.
Jaffe, S. & Schub, T. (2011). Intimate partner violence: Physical abuse. Cinahl Information
Systems.
Johri, M., Morales, R. E., Boivin, J., Samayoa, B. E., Hoch, J. S., Grazioso, C. F., & ...
Arathoon, E. G. (2011). Increased risk of miscarriage among women experiencing
physical or sexual intimate partner violence during pregnancy in Guatemala City,
Guatemala: cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth, 11(1), 49.
doi:10.1186/1471-2393-11-49
Kim, J., Park, S., & Emery, C. (2009). The incidence and impact of family violence on
mental health among South Korean women: results of a national survey. Journal of
Family Violence, 24(3), 193-202.
Kunst, M., Bogaerts, S., & Winkel, F. (2010). Domestic violence and mental health in a
Dutch community sample: The adverse role of loneliness. Journal of Community &
Applied Social Psychology, 20(5), 419-425. doi:10.1002/casp.1040
Kunst, M. J., & van Bon-Martens, M. J. (2011). Examining the link between domestic
violence victimization and loneliness in a Dutch community sample: A comparison
between victims and nonvictims by Type D personality. Journal of Family Violence,
26(5), 403-410.
Lacey, K. K., Sears, K. P., Matusko, N., & Jackson, J. S. (2015). Severe physical violence
and Black women’s health and well-being. American Journal of Public Health,
105(4), 719-724.
Lansi, J. & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics, 33, 159-174
Langenderfer-Magruder, L., Whitfield, D., Walls, N., Kattari, S. & Ramos, D. (2016).
Experiences of intimate partner violence and subsequent police reporting among
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer adults in Colorado: Comparing rates of
cisgender and transgender victimisation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31(5), 855-
871. doi: 10.1177/0886260514556767
Lawrence, E., Yoon, J., Langer, A., & Ro, E. (2009). Is psychological aggression as detrimental
as physical aggression? The independent effects of psychological aggression on
depression and anxiety symptoms. Violence & Victims, 24(1), 20-35.
Letellier, P. (1996). Twin epidemics: Domestic violence and HIV infection among gay and
bisexual men. In C. Renzetti & C. Miley (Eds.), Violence in Gay and Lesbian
Domestic Partnerships (pp. 69-81). Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press
Loke, A., Wan, M. & Hayter, M. (2012). The lived experience of women victims of intimate
partner violence. Journal of Clinical Nursing. 21. 2336-2346. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2702.2012.04159x
Lombardi, E., Wilchins, R., Priesing, D. & Malouf, D. (2001). Gender violence: Transgender
experiences with violence and discrimination. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(1), 89-
101. doi: 10.1300/J082v42n01_05

Martin, C. E., Houston, A. M., Mmari, K. N. & Decker, M. R. (2012) Urban teens and young
adults describe drama, disrespect, dating violence and help-seeking preferences.
Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(5), 957-966, doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0819-4
Martinez-Torteya, C., Bogat, G., von Eye, A., Levendosky, A., & Davidson WS, 2. (2009).
Women's appraisals of intimate partner violence stressfulness and their relationship to
depressive and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms. Violence & Victims, 24(6),
707-722.
Merrill, G. (1996). Ruling the exception: Same-sex battering and domestic violence theory. In
C. Renzetti & C. Miley’s (Eds.), Violence in Gay and Lesbian Domestic Partnerships
(pp. 9-21). New York: Harrington Park Press
Messinger, A. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the national violence against
women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(11), 2228-2243 doi:
10.1177/0886260510383023
Morgan, K., Williamson, E. Hester, M., Jones, S. & Feder, G. (2014). Asking men about
domestic violence and abuse in a family medicine context: Help seeking and views on
the general practitioner role. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 19. 637-642. doi:
10.1016/j.avb.2014.09.008
Morin, C. (2014). Re-traumatised: How gendered laws exacerbate the harm for same-sex
victims of intimate partner violence. New England Journal on Criminal & Civil
Confinement. 40 (2). 477-497.
Nayback-Beebe, A. & Yoder, L. (2012). The lived experiences of a male survivor of intimate
partner violence: A qualitative case study. MEDSURG Nursing, 21(2) 89-95

Nowinski, S. & Bowen, E. (2012). Partner violence against heterosexual and gay men:
Prevalence and correlates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 36-52.
Pace, R., Pluye, P., Bartlett, G., Macauley, A., Salsberg, J., Jagosh, J. & Seller, R. (2011).
Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot mixed methods appraisal tool
(MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. International Journal of Nursing
Studies. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.07.002
Pantalone, D. W., Hessler, D. M., & Simoni, J. M. (2010). Mental health pathways from
interpersonal violence to health-related outcomes in HIV-positive sexual minority
men. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(3), 387-397.
doi:10.1037/a0019307
Pantalone, D., Schneider, K., Valentine, S., & Simoni, J. (2012). Investigating partner abuse
among HIV-positive men who have sex with men. AIDS & Behavior, 16(4), 1031-
1043. doi:10.1007/s10461-011-0011-2
Pengpid, S. & Peltzer, K. (2016). Intimate partner violence victimisation and associated
factors among male and female university students in 22 countries in Africa, Asia and
the Americas. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 20(1), 29-39
Petticrew, M. (2001). Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and
misconceptions. British Medical Journal, 322(7278), 98-101
Pluye, P. & Hong, Q. (2014). Combining the power of stories and the power of numbers:
Mixed methods research and mixed studies reviews. Annual Review of Public Health,
35, 29-45. doi: 10.1146//annurev-publhealth-032013-182440
Pluye, P., Robert, E., Cargo, M., Bartlett, G., O’Cathain, A., Griffiths, F., Boardman, F.,
Gagnon, M.P., & Rousseau, M.C. (2011). Proposal: A mixed methods appraisal tool
for systematic mixed studies reviews. Retrieved on [date] from
http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com. Archived by WebCite® at
http://www.webcitation.org/5tTRTc9yJ
Próspero, M. & Kim, M. (2009) Mutual partner violence: Mental health symptoms among
female and male victims in four racial/ethnic groups. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 24 (12) 2039-2056, doi:10.1177/0886260508327705.
Próspero, M. & Vohra-Gupta, S. (2008). The use of mental health services among victims of
partner violence on college campuses. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment &
Trauma, 16(4), 376-390 doi: 10.1080/10926770801926450
Rahman, M., Nakamura, K., Seino, K., & Kizuki, M. (2013). Are survivors of intimate
partner violence more likely to experience complications around delivery? Evidence
from a national Bangladeshi sample. The European Journal of Contraception &
Reproductive Health Care, 18(1), 49-60.
Randle, A. & Graham, C. (2011). A review of the evidence on the effects of intimate partner
violence on men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity. 12 (2). 97-111. doi:
10.1037/a0021944
Renner, L. M., Habib, L., Stromquist, A. M., & Peek-Asa, C. (2014). The association of
intimate partner violence and depressive symptoms in a cohort of rural couples.
Journal of Rural Health, 30(1), 50-58. doi:10.1111/jrh.12026
Rennie, D., Watson, K. & Monteiro, A. (2002). The rise of qualitative research in
psychology. Canadian Psychology, 43(3), 179-189 doi: 10.1037/h0086914
Reuter, T. R., Newcomb, M. E., Whitton, S. W., & Mustanski, B. (2017). Intimate partner
violence victimization in LGBT young adults: Demographic differences and

associations with health behaviors. Psychology of Violence, 7(1), 101-109.
doi:10.1037/vio0000031
Rhodes, K. V., Houry, D., Cerulli, C., Straus, H., Kaslow, N. J., & McNutt, L. A. (2009).
Intimate partner violence and comorbid mental health conditions among urban male
patients. The Annals of Family Medicine, 7(1), 47-55.
Sabina, C., & Straus, M. (2008). Polyvictimization by dating partners and mental health
among U.S. college students. Violence & Victims, 23(6), 667-682.
Scott, S., & Babcock, J. (2010). Attachment as a moderator between intimate partner violence
and PTSD symptoms. Journal of Family Violence, 25(1), 1-9. doi:10.1007/s10896-
009-9264-1
Scourfield, J., Roen, K. & McDermott, L. (2008). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender
young people’s experiences of distress: Resilience, ambivalence and self-destructive
behaviour. Health and Social Care in the Community, 16(3), 329-336 doi:
10.1111/j.1365-2524.2008.00769.x
Shneyderman, Y., & Kiely, M. (2013). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: victim or
perpetrator? Does it make a difference?. BJOG: An International Journal of
Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 120(11), 1375-1385.
Siemieniuk, R., Miller, P., Woodman, K., Ko, K., Krentz, H., & Gill, M. (2013). Prevalence,
clinical associations, and impact of intimate partner violence among HIV-infected gay
and bisexual men: a population-based study. HIV Medicine, 14(5), 293-302.
doi:10.1111/hiv.12005
Sormanti, M., & Shibusawa, T. (2008). Intimate partner violence among midlife and older
women: a descriptive analysis of women seeking medical services. Health & Social
Work, 33(1), 33-41.
Steinmetz, S. K. (1977). The battered husband syndrome. Victimology, 2(3-4), 499-509.
Straus, M. A. (1979). Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT)
scales. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 75-88.
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.
Svavarsdottir, E., & Orlygsdottir, B. (2009). Intimate partner abuse factors associated with
women's health: a general population study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 65(7),
1452-1462. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05006.x
Svavarsdóttir, E. K., Orlygsdottir, B., & Gudmundsdottir, B. (2015). Reaching out to women
who are victims of intimate partner violence. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 51(3),
190-201.
Swan, S., Gambone, L., Caldwell, J., Sullivan, T. & Snow, D. (2008). A review of research
on women’s use of violence with male intimate partners. Violence and Victims, 23 (3),
301-314.
Sylaska, K. & Edwards, K. (2015). Disclosure experiences of sexual minority college student
victims of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55,
326-335 doi: 10.1007/s10464-015-9717-Z

Tamres, L., Janicki, D. & Helgeson, V. (2002). Sex differences in coping behaviour: A meta-
analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 6(1), 2-30
The Scottish Trans Alliance. (2010). Out of Sight, Out of Mind? Transgender People’s
Experiences of Domestic Abuse. Retrieved on 2nd June 2017 from
www.scottishtrans.org/resources/research-evidence/
Thompson, M. P., Saltzman, L. E. & Johnson, H. (2003) A Comparison of Risk Factors for
Intimate Partner Violence-Related Injury Across Two National Surveys on Violence
Against Women. Violence Against Women, 9(4), 438-457, doi:
10.1177/1077801202250955
Waldrop, A. & Resick, P. (2004). Coping among adult female victims of domestic violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 19(5), 291-302
Walker, J. (2015). Investigating trans people’s vulnerabilities to intimate partner
violence/abuse. Partner Abuse, 6(1), 107-125, doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.6.1.107
Williams, J., Wyatt, G., Myers, H., Green, K., & Warda, U. (2008). Patterns in relationship
violence among African American women: future research and implications for
intervention. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 16(3), 296-310.
Weaver, T. L., Resnick, H. S., Kokoska, M. S., & Etzel, J. C. (2007). Appearance‐related
residual injury, posttraumatic stress, and body image: Associations within a sample of
female victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 20(6), 999-
1008.
West, C. (2002). Lesbian intimate partner violence: Prevalence and dynamics. Journal of
Lesbian Studies, 6(1), 121-127 doi: 10.1300/J155v06n01_11

Whitton, S., Newcomb, M., Messinger, A., Byck, G. & Mustanski, B. (2016). A longitudinal
study of IPV victimisation among sexual minority youth. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 1-34. doi: 10.1177/0886260516646093
Zhan, W., Hansen, N., Shaboltas, A., Skochilov, R., Kozlov, A., Krasnoselskikh, T., & ...
Abdala, N. (2012). Partner violence perpetration and victimization and HIV risk
behaviors in St. Petersburg, Russia. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 25(1), 86-93.
doi:10.1002/jts.21658
View publication stats

IPVSystematic Literature Review Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPVSystematic Literature Review Preprint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IPVSystematic Literature Review Preprint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

A systematic literature review of intimate partner violence victimisation: An

Article in Aggression and Violent Behavior · March 2019

Philippa Laskey Elizabeth A Bates

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A Systematic Literature Review of Intimate Partner Violence Victimisation: An

Inclusive Review Across Gender and Sexuality

Philippa Laskeyª*, Elizabeth A. Batesª & Julie C. Taylorª

ªDepartment of Psychology, University of Cumbria, Cumbria UK

*Corresponding Author at:

Department of Applied Psychology, University of Cumbria, Fusehill Street, Carlisle,

opposite-sex relationships. In order to provide adequate support services to victims of IPV,

Gender and IPV Victimisation

wealth of literature conducted with female victims in opposite-sex relationships demonstrates

a significant and long-lasting effect of abuse on women’s’ wellbeing. In comparison, studies

There is a limited amount of research concerning transgender people and IPV

experience more incidents of IPV than cisgender people (Langenderfer-Magruder, Whitfield,

all of them recognise their experience as abuse.

Sexuality and IPV Victimisation

Most research conducted on IPV victimisation is concerned with women in opposite-sex

in same-sex relationships who experience violence are under-researched. In reality, it is thought

that violence in same-sex relationships occurs at similar rates as violence in opposite-sex

relationships (Letellier, 1996). However, the rates of IPV victimisation in same-sex

Similarly, to victims who are transgender and male victims in opposite-sex

legitimises investigating IPV in an inclusive way across gender and sexuality.

Aim of the Current Systematic Literature Review

primary research on IPV victimisation.

PsycARTICLES 1894 to date Full text, peer-reviewed

CINAHL 1982 to date Health specific database which

Domestic Violence Sexuality and Gender Victimisation

Subject Heading: Subject Heading: Subject Heading:

In CINAHL: (MM “Domestic In CINAHL: (MH “Sexuality” In CINAHL: (MM “Victims”)

Keywords: Keywords: Keywords:

“domestic violence” “same sex” victim*

“intimate partner violence” “same-sex” battered

“partner aggress*” homosexual* patient*

“partner violence” lesbian*

“partner abuse” gay*

“domestic abuse” “opposite sex”

“intimate partner abuse” “opposite-sex”

Literature Search CINAHL PsycARTICLES

Search 1: Domestic violence 14,032 838

Search 2: Sexuality and Gender 1,675,704 37,278

Search 3: Victimisation 1,186,474 17,791

Search 4: 1, 2, and 3 combined 1,306 91

Search 5: Search for relevant 19

Combined Relevant Literature 1,416

Relevant After De-duplication 712

Relevant After Abstract Sift 373

Relevant After Inclusion and 153

Final Articles (after quality 106

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

quality assessment can be found in Table 4 below.

Results of MMAT quality assessment

Number (%) 21 (13.73%) 128 (83.66%) 4 (2.61%) 153 (100%)

1 star = * (%) - 8 (80%) 2 (20%) 10 (6.54% of

2 star = ** (%) 4 (11.11%) 31 (86.11%) 1 (2.78%) 36 (23.53% of

3 star = *** (%) 9 (12%) 65 (86.67%) 1 (1.33%) 75 (49.02% of

“partner aggress” homosexual patient*