search
for
 About Bioline  All Journals  Testimonials  Membership  News


African Journal of Reproductive Health
Women's Health and Action Research Centre
ISSN: 1118-4841
Vol. 15, Num. 4, 2011, pp. 78-86

African Journal of Reproductive Health, Vol. 15, No. 4, Dec, 2011, pp. 78-86

Original Research Article

Factors influencing gender based violence among men and women in selected states in Nigeria

Facteurs qui influent sur la violence basée sur les sexes chez les hommes et les femmes dans les états choisis au Nigéria

Oladepo O1, Yusuf OB*2 and Arulogun OS1

1Dept of Health Promotion and Education, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria;
2
Dept of Epidemiology, Medical Statistics & Environmental Health, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria
*For correspondence: Email: bidemi_yusuf@yahoo.com Tel: 234 805 505 9818

Code Number: rh11054

Abstract                                                

This study determined the factors associated with gender based violence among 3000 men and women in selected states in Nigeria. Respondents who had experienced physical violence were 806(26.9%), comprising 353(11.8%) males and 453(15.1%) females (p<0.001).  Respondents who had experienced sexual violence were 364 (12.1%) of which 221 (7.4%) were males and 143(4.8%) were females (p<0.0001). Married female respondents were more likely to experience physical violence than single respondents (OR= 1.71, 95%CI: 1.15-2.53 p=0.008). In addition, lower risk of experiencing sexual violence among males was observed among those who do not drink alcohol. The study has shown that gender based violence still constitutes a problem in Nigeria, affecting women more than men.  However, efforts should be geared towards addressing the factors that promote violence among both sexes through increased awareness and education (Afr J Reprod Health 2011; 15[4]: 78-86).

Résumé

Cette étude a déterminé les facteurs liés à la violence basée sur les sexes chez 3000 hommes et femmes dans les états choisis au Nigéria.  Les interviewés qui ont vécu la violence physique comptaient 806(26,9%) y compris 353 (11,8%) mâles et 453 (15,1%) femelles (p<0,001).  Les interviewés qui ont vécu la violence sexuelles comptaient 364 (12,1%) dont 221 (7,4%) étaient des mâles et 143 (4,8%) étaient des femelles (p<,0001).  Les interviewés femelles mariées avaient plus la possibilité de subir la violence physique que les interviewées célibataires (0R=1,71,  95%CI : 1,15-2,53 p=0,008).  De plus, le risque plus élevé chez les hommes de subir la violence sexuelle a été lié significativement à l’état de fumeur des partenaires, l’état professionnel et la consommation d’alcool chez les mâles.  L’étude a montré que la violence basée basée sur les sexes constitue encore un problème au Nigéria et touche plus les femmes que les hommes.  Néanmoins, il faut faire des efforts pour s’occuper des facteurs qui encouragent  la violence chez les deux sexes à travers l’intensification de la sensibilisation  et l’éducation (Afr J Reprod Health 2011; 15[4]: 78-86).

Keywords: Physical violence, Sexual violence, Nigeria

Introduction

Gender Based Violence (GBV) is a major public health and human rights problem involving all ages and sexes.  Although the term “gender based violence” is widely used as a synonym for violence against women, GBV also occurs among men 1. The UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (DEVW), defines the term “violence against women” as:  “Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life 2. Physical abuse is a pattern of physical assaults and threats used to control another person.  It includes punching, hitting, choking, biting, and throwing objects at a person, kicking, pushing and using a weapon such as a gun or a knife.  Sexual violence has been defined as any sexual act, unwanted sexual comments or advances or acts to traffic women’s sexuality, using coercion, threats of harm or physical force by any person regardless of relationship to the survivor in any setting 3.  The scope of this definition has been expanded to include forced sex, sexual coercion, rape and child abuse 4. In this study, sexual violence is defined as any unwanted sexual act, such as forced sex.

Current estimates of gender based violence indicate that between 8-70% of women worldwide have been physically and sexually assaulted by a male partner at least once in their lives 5.  In Zambia, DHS data indicate that 27% of ever-married women reported being beaten by their spouse or partner in the past year and about 13% of 15-19 year olds were sexually coerced in the past 12 months.6  In rural Ethiopia, 49% of ever partnered women have ever experienced physical violence by an intimate partner, while 59% had ever experienced sexual violence 7.  All these variations may be a consequence of underreporting, stigma, shame or other social and cultural factors that deter women from discussing episodes of violence 3.  In another hospital based study in Nairobi, the prevalence of sexual violence was 61.5%, while the proportion of physical assault was 38.5% 8.  This study also reported that majority of the perpetrators of gender based violence were married (72.3%) and alcohol was a significant contributor in 10.1% of determinant cases.  In a study of Igbo communities in Nigeria, 58.9% of women reported battery during pregnancy while 21.3% have been forced to have sexual intercourse 9.

Most investigations of domestic violence have centered on men as the perpetrators of violence; however, this is not to deny that cases of men being victims of domestic violence do not exist.  It has been reported that men have their share of adverse consequences of domestic violence. 

In the study by Fawole 10 on violence among young female hawkers, 19.7% of women had experienced physical assault, 36.3% had received sexual harassment, while only 7.2% had emotional or psychological violence. Prevalence of wife beating among civil servants in another study was 31.3%; 42.5% of the men had been perpetrators, while 23.5% of the women had been victims. 11  In this study, alcohol consumption and growing up in an environment where parents fight publicly were significantly associated with men beating their wives, while being young, unmarried and domestic violence between parents of the respondents were significantly associated with women being beaten.

In spite of all the studies on violence against women, documentation of violence against men is almost non-existent. This may largely be due to the wide spread tolerance of such acts and lack of appropriate legal framework that protects women and men from domestic gender based violence in Nigeria.  Therefore, this study sets out to investigate the factors associated with gender based violence among both men and women in Nigeria.

Methods

A descriptive cross sectional study was carried out among men and women in three states (Kaduna, Enugu and Oyo) of Nigeria.  Oyo State is a state in south-western Nigeria with its capital at Ibadan.  Enugu state is inland in south-eastern Nigeria with its capital at Enugu, while Kaduna state is located at the northern end of Nigeria’s high plains which has its capital in Kaduna.  Variations exist in these states on certain characteristics (socio demographic, violence and behavioural) especially age at marriage. For example, in northern Nigeria, age at marriage is lower compared to other communities 12.

A Multi stage cluster random sampling procedure was employed.  The 6 geo-political zones of Nigeria were identified as clusters.  Stage 1 involved the random selection of 3 geo-political zones from a list of the 6 geo-political zones in the country.  This resulted in the selection of south west, north central and south east zones.  Stage 2 involved the random selection of one state in each of the selected zones with the selection of Oyo, Enugu and Kaduna states.  These three states were selected using a simple random sample from a list of all states in the zones, after which local governments were randomly selected and then communities within the local government areas. In the selected communities, a landmark was identified (e.g.  a church, mosque or market place) and a coin was tossed. If it showed a head, the research assistant proceeded in the right direction; if it showed a tail, the left direction was followed.  Every consecutive household was visited  and respondents who were of reproductive age were selected.  One eligible respondent was recruited per household.  If there were more than one, they were asked to ballot.  To be eligible for interview, the adult man or woman (whether married or single) must have been (previously or currently) in an intimate relationship. 

The minimum sample size required to determine level of domestic violence at a 5% level of significance with a 90% power and a 5% error tolerable was calculated and a minimum sample size of 989 was arrived at which was increased to 1000 per state.  Structured questionnaires were administered by research assistants who had previous experience in data collection with a minimum of a diploma or post high school experience.  They participated with field supervisors in a 1-day training session that focused on the basic skills of data collection and contents of the questionnaire.  The objective and rationale of the study was explained to each respondent and their consent was sought before administration of the questionnaire. Information concerning social characteristics, demographic characteristics, alcohol and smoking status, attitudes and perceptions towards gender and relationships of each participant were collected.  Questions were derived from a thorough literature review including the WHO Multi-Country Study of Violence against Women 13.  Two principal domestic violence outcome variables, following conventional definitions, were considered in this analysis:  Physical and sexual violence.  Physical violence was assessed from the response to questions asking whether the respondents had experienced at least one of the 17 subtypes of physical violence (i.e., slap on the face, throwing something at you, pushing, biting, tying up, pulling your hair, beaten up, hit with an object, burning or acid attack, choking, stabbing, thrown out, kicks on the body, shoving, dragging, knife threat and gun threat) on which information related to physical violence was collected.  Sexual violence was assessed from the response to questions asking whether the respondent had experienced at least one of the two subtypes of violence related to sex (i.e., denial of sex and forced sexual intercourse)   in the present or past relationship.  The choice of variables for the identification of risk factors was based on previous published studies and literature reviews on gender-based violence 14, 15, 16, 17

Statistical Analysis

Frequency tables were generated for all relevant variables.  Descriptive statistics such as means, and standard deviations were used to summarize quantitative variables while qualitative variables were summarized by percentages.  The chi squared test was used to compare two proportions and also to investigate associations between two qualitative variables.  Variables that were significant in the bivariate analysis were then entered into a logistic regression model to investigate the strength of these associations.  The goodness of fit of the binary logistic model was assessed using the Hosmer Lemeshow test 18.  Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were presented.  Prevalence estimates of physical and sexual violence were defined separately.  The life time prevalence of physical and sexual violence was defined as the experience of one or more acts of physical or sexual violence (mentioned above) from a current or former male or female partner at any time.  Relationships between the two outcome variables (physical and sexual violence) and explanatory variables were evaluated by sex of respondents.  Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (CIs) for prevalence estimates were determined using previously described methods 19.  All analysis was performed using the SPSS at 5% level of significance. 

Results

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

The study consisted of 3000 survey respondents; 1496 (49.9%) males and 1504 (50.1%) females.  The mean age of the respondents was 34.1years (S.D = 12.1years).  About a third of the respondents were Igbos (1052, 35.1%), Yorubas were 1030 (34.3%) while Hausas were 418(13.9%)  A total of 1739 (58%) were married, 1057 (35.2%) single, 82(2.7%) widowed, 53 (1.8%) separated and 43 (1.4%) divorced.  About one-third of survey respondents (939, 31.3%) had high school or secondary education, while 380 (12.7%) had primary education.  A larger percentage of survey respondents were artisans or traders (1026, 34.2%), 530 (17.7%) were students, professionals were 458 (15.3%) and civil servants were 244 (8.1%) (Table 1).

Prevalence of different types of Gender Based Violence

Gender based violence was defined by different variables such as verbal abuse, slap on the face, throwing something at one, and pushing among others.  Verbal abuse had the highest prevalence (53.4%), followed by slap on the face (12.7%). Three hundred (10.0%) respondents mentioned denial of sex while only 92 (3.1%) reported forced sexual intercourse.  Significantly more females than males had experienced verbal abuse -  56.6% vs 50.2% (p<0.001).  However, more males than females had experienced denial of sex -   13.1% Vs 7.0% (p<0.001).  Also, forced sex was more common among females than males (4.1% Vs 2.0%, p<0.001). Table 2 shows the frequency distribution of the different types of violence experienced by gender. 

Physical and sexual Violence

Respondents who had experienced physical violence were 806 (26.9%) comprising 353(11.8%) males and 453(15.1%) females (p<0.001).  Respondents who had experienced sexual violence were 92 (3.1%) of which 30 (2.0%) were males and 62(4.1%) were females (p<0.001).

Table 1: Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents

Characteristic

Male

Female

Total

Age(yrs)

<29

601(40.2)

695(46.2)

1296(43.2)

30-39

406(27.1)

415(27.6)

821(27.4)

40-49

248(16.6)

256(17.0)

504(16.8)

50-59

145(9.7)

85(5.7)

230(7.7)

60-69

53(3.5)

24(1.6)

77(2.6)

>70

28(1.9)

13(0.9)

41(1.4)

Missing

15(1.0)

16(1.1)

31(1.0)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000

Tribe

Igbo

520(34.8)

532(35.4)

1052(35.1)

Yoruba

511(34.2)

519(34.5)

1030(34.3)

Hausa

190(12.7)

228(15.2)

418(13.9)

Other Tribes

263(17.6)

202(13.4)

465(15.5)

Foreigners

4(0.27)

17(1.1)

21(0.7)

Missing

8(0.5)

6(0.4)

14(0.5)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000(100.0)

Religion

Christianity

1058(70.7)

1135(75.5)

2193(73.1)

Islam

421(28.1)

355(23.6)

776(25.9)

Traditional/Others

14(0.96)

7(0.5)

21(0.7)

Missing

3(0.2)

7(0.5)

10(0.3)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000(100.0

Marital Status

Married

817(54.6)

922(61.3)

1739(58.0)

Single

614(41.0)

443(29.5)

1057(35.2)

Widowed

12(0.8)

70(4.7)

82(2.7)

Divorced

16(1.1)

27(1.8)

43(1.4)

Separated

24(1.6)

29(1.9)

53(1.8)

Missing

13(0.9)

13(0.9)

26(0.9)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000(100.0)

Level of Education

No formal education

42(2.8)

99(6.6)

141(4.7)

Adult/Quranic

10(0.7)

20(1.3)

30(1.0)

Primary

170(11.4)

210(13.9)

380(12.7)

Secondary/High

459(30.7)

480(31.9)

939(31.3)

College/Tertiary

664(44.4)

648(43.1)

1312(43.7)

Others

7(0.5)

21(1.4)

28(0.9)

Missing

144(9.6)

35(2.3)

179(6.0)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000(100.0)

Occupation

Artisans

406(27.1)

620(41.2)

1026(34.2)

Business/trading/Self employed

336(22.5)

158(10.5)

494(16.5)

Professionals

280(17.4)

178(11.8)

458(15.3)

Students

261(17.4)

269(17.9)

530(17.7)

Civil Servants

123(8.2)

121(8.0)

244(8.1)

Applicants

43(2.9)

33(2.2)

76(2.5)

Retiree

5(0.3)

9(0.6)

14(0.5)

Politicians

11(0.7)

1(0.07)

12(0.4)

Missing

31(2.1)

115(7.6)

146(4.9)

Total

1496(100.0)

1504(100.0)

3000(100.0)

          Table 2: Frequency distribution of the types of violence and the proportion of positive respondenders

Types of Violence

Female to Male

Male to Female

Total

Frequency      

%

Frequency    

%

Frequency     

%

Verbal abuse

751            

50.2

851

56.6

1602

53.4

Slap on the face or ear

126              

8.4

254

16.9

380

12.7

Throwing something at you

38             

2.5

79

5.3

139

4.6

Pushing or shoving

116             

7.8

127

8.4

243

8.1

       No

1380          

92.2

1376

91.6

2756

91.9

Biting

46                

3.1

28

1.9

74 

2.5

Tying Up

10               

0.7

0.5

17

0.6

Pulling your hair

18                

1.2

41 

2.7

59

2.0

Beaten Up

63               

4.2

217

14.4

280

9.4

Hitting with an object

34                

2.3

47

3.1

81

2.7

Burning/Acid Attack

1                

0.1

1   

0.1

2

0.1

Choking

16                 

1.1

12

0.8

28

0.9

Stabbing

8                  

0.5

1

0.1

0.3

Thrown out of the house

38                

2.5

78

5.2

116

3.9

Kicks/Blows on parts of the body

35               

2.3

66

4.4

101 

3.4

Denial of sex

195         

13.1

105

7.0

300

10.0

Denial of house keeping allowance

31            

2.1

153

10.2

184

6.1

Shoving

63             

4.2

24

1.6

87

2.9

Dragging

57             

3.8

157

10.5

112

3.7

Verbal Threat

174           

11.6

157

10.5

331

11.0

Knife Threat

20              

1.3

12

0.8

32  

1.1

Gun Threat

4                

0.3

2

0.1

0.2

Forced Sexual intercourse

30          

2.0

62

4.1

92

3.1

Table 3: Logistic regression results of physical violence against male respondents

Variable                                      

Odds ratio

Standard error

  95% CI

P value

Place of residence

South west

South east

*North west

1.79

1.61

0.212

0.215

1.18-2.72

1.05-2.45

0.006

0.028

Marital status

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

*Single

1.82

1.17

2.241

1.26

0.222

0.53

0.64

0.721

1.18-2.80

0.41-3.37

0.64-7.87

0.31-5.16

0.007

0.77

0.21

0.76

Partners educational level

No formal Education

Primary Education

Secondary Education

*Tertiary

2.681

1.13

1.19

0.49

0.29

0.18

1.00-7.14

0.64-1.99

0.83-1.70

0.048

0.67

0.34

*Reference category

Logistic Regression Models of Physical and Sexual Violence

Physical Violence against Male Respondents

Males who reside in the south west were more likely to experience physical violence than males who reside in the North West (OR = 1.8, 95%Cl: 1.18-2.72, p=0.006).  Males who reside in the south east were also likely to experience physical violence than males who reside in the North West (OR = 1.61, 95%CI: 1.05-2.45, p=0.028).  In addition, more married males experienced physical violence compared with single males.  (OR=1.82, 95%CI: 1.18-1.80, p=0.007). Male respondents who have partners with no formal education were also more likely to experience physical violence than males whose partners attained college or tertiary education (OR=2.7, 95%CI: 1.00-7.14, p=0.048) (Table 3).

Table 4:  Logistic regression of physical violence against female respondents

 Variable

Odds ratio

Standard error

95% CI

P-value

Partner smokes cigarette

Yes vs. No

2.05

0.183

1.44-2.94

P<0.001

Marital status

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

*Single

1.71

9.71

12.92

1.645

0.200

0.519

0.692

0.367

1.15-2.53

3.51-26.86

3.325-50.17

0.801-3.378

0.008

P<0.001

P<0.001

0.175

Partner drinks alcohol

Yes vs. No

1.521

0.419

1.110-2.084

0.009

Age of respondents in years

10-30

31-50

51-70

*>70

3.58

7.09

5.41

0.547

0.549

0.589

1.23-10.42

2.42-20.83

1.71-17.24

0.02

P<0.001

0.004

Place of residence

South west vs. North west

South east vs. North west

1.97

1.19

0.193

0.339

1.35-2.88

0.830-1.715

P<0.001

*Reference category

Table 5: Logistic regression analysis of sexual violence against male respondents

Variable

Odds ratio

Standard

Error

95% CI

p-value

Occupational status

Business

Professional

Artisans

Civil servants

Students/NYSC

*Unemployed

0.192

1.106

0.381

0.563

1.022

0.239

1.183

0.425

0.700

1.124

0.017-2.198

0.136-9.00

0.043-3.383

0.049- 6.449

0.985- 0.118

0.185

0925

0.387

0.644

0.085

Do you drink alcohol

No

*Yes

0.472

0.206

0.085- 0.201

0.085

*Reference category

Physical Violence against Female Respondents

Female respondents who have partners that smoke cigarettes were 2 times more likely to experience physical violence from such partners than female respondents who have partners that do not smoke (OR=2.05, 95%CI: 1.44-2.94, p<0.001).  Married female respondents were about 1.71 times more likely to experience physical violence than single respondents (OR=1.71, 95%CI: 1.15-2.53 p=0.0008).  Female respondents who have partners that drink alcohol were 1.52 times more likely to experience physical violence (OR =1.52, 95%CI: 1.11-2.08, p=0.009) than female respondents, who have partners who do not drink.  Also, female respondents in the age group 31-50 years  were about 7 times more likely to experience physical violence (OR= 7.09, 95%CI: 2.42-20.83, p<0.001) than females above 70 years.  Female respondents who reside in the south west were about 2 times more likely to experience physical violence (OR= 1.97, 95%CI: 1.35-2.88, p<0.001) than females who reside in the North West (Table 4).

Sexual violence against male respondents

Male respondents who are civil servants were about 2 times less likely to experience sexual violence than unemployed males  (OR= 0.562, 95%CI: 0.049- 6.45, p=0.64). However, male students were more likely to experience sexual violence than unemployed males (OR= 1.02, 95%CI: 0.985- 0.118, p=0.99).  Male respondents who do not drink alcohol were 2 times less likely to experience sexual violence (OR=0.472, 95%CI: 0.085- 0.201, p=0.085) than male respondents who drink (Table 5).

Table 6: Logistic regression of sexual violence against female respondents

Variable

Odds ratio

Standard

Error

95% CI

p-value

Place of residence

*South west

South east

South south

North west

North central

3.92

5.94

3.71

4.58

1.79

4.15

2.74

2.04

1.596- 9.61

1.51-23.35

0.87- 15.76

1.92- 10.94

0.003

0.011

0.76

0.001

Age of Respondents(yrs)

*10-30

 31-50

 51-70

 >70

0.075

1.58

8.88

0.046

0.568

4.58

 

0.023- 0.246

0.784-3.198

3.22-24.45

>0.001

0.200

>0.001

Income

*Income not stated/No income

<5,000

5,000-10,000

10,001-15,000

15,000-20,001

20,001-25,000

>25,000

0.64

0.62

1.22

1.49

0.39

1.33

0.296

0.259

0.591

0.718

0.411

0.627

0.256- 1.589

0.276-1.407

0.468-315

0.579- 3.83

0.049-3.09

0.528-3.35

0.331

0.255

0.689

0.407

0.371

0.546

          *Reference category

Sexual violence against female respondents

Female respondents who are from the south-south region were about 6 times more likely to experience sexual violence (OR= 5.94, 95%CI: 1.51- 23.35, p=0.011)   than females from the south west.  Females who have income between 15000 and 20,000 were about 2 times more likely to experience sexual violence (OR= 1.49, 95%CI: 0.579-3.83, p=0.407) than female respondents with no income.  Females in the age group >29years were 4 times more likely to experience sexual violence (OR=4.08, 95%CI: 1.39-12.05, p=0.003) compared with females above 70years (Table 6). However, other variables (respondent’s education level, respondent’s occupation, partner’s educational level, marital status and alcohol consumption of partner) entered into the logistic regression did not achieve statistical significance. 

Discussion

Prevalence of Physical and Sexual Violence

Violence remains a major public health problem all over the world. The prevalence of physical violence in this study was higher than that reported by Anderson20 but lower than the ones  reported by Wijma,21 Arulogun et al 22 and Fawole et al 10, 11. The prevalence of sexual violence in this study was much lower than the Wijma and Arulogun  studies 21, 22. These findings are also consistent with those from the WHO multi-country study in which the prevalence of physical and sexual violence was between 4% and 54% 23 among respondents. 

Our findings revealed that more females experienced physical violence than males.  This might be due to cultural permissiveness that justifies men’s physical aggression against women.  These findings also support the results of the study conducted by Tjaden and Thoennes 24 which indicated that women are more likely to experience violence than men. The rates of physical and sexual violence varied across the geopolitical zones with south east having the highest prevalence.  This fairly supports the early studies conducted in Igbo communities in Nigeria which indicated a high prevalence of physical violence 9.  However, the rates in the southwest study site were much lower than those reported in other studies on violence in south west Nigeria 10,11.

Factors Associated with Physical and Sexual Violence

Relatively young age, income, being divorced or separated, and prior victimization have been identified as characteristics that are associated with an increased risk for domestic violence from studies conducted by Hotaling 25.  However, considering the peculiarity of this study in exploring the factors for domestic violence against males and females, factors identified for male respondents include informal education of partners of male respondents as a strong correlate for physical violence. This is similar to the findings of Ghazizadeh26 in Iran who reported a significant association between husband’s education level and violence against their wives. However, this is not consistent with the report from Zambia where those with lesser education were less likely to report physical violence. 20. This difference may be due to the different cultures and populations. Also, male respondents who were married had a higher risk of experiencing physical violence than single males. This is similar to the work of Anderson (2007) who reported that having partners is a risk factor for domestic physical violence. In addition, Anderson et al also showed that partner physical violence increased progressively with number of partners. The study by Ghazizadeh in Iran also reported that married men experienced physical violence. Higher risk of experiencing sexual violence was observed among professional male respondents compared to those that were unemployed. However, this did not achieve statistical significance. In addition, males who did not drink alcohol, had a lower risk of experiencing sexual violence compared to males who drank alcohol even though this also did not reach statistical significance.  Even though the exact relationship between alcohol and violence remains unclear, researches have consistently found drinking patterns to be related to intimate partner and sexual violence. These findings are similar to those reported by Saidi 8 and Fawole 30 in which there was an association between alcohol intake, young age and violence.  These findings reflect that factors which influence physical violence differ from those that influence sexual violence against men. 

Females who had partners who smoke were at a higher risk of physical violence.  An additional finding of interest is that physical and sexual violence was more common in young people particularly those less than 30yrs. This is consistent with findings of Hotaling 25.  This may not be unconnected with their active life which may not go well with their partners. Female respondents with low income experienced sexual and physical violence more than those with higher income. Several authors have found results similar to these ones10, 9.  This is not unexpected as lack of resources can facilitate stressful situation which is a precursor to violence. Behavioural factors of partners were found to greatly influence domestic violence against females which corroborates the findings by Coker 27 .  Females who had partners that smoke had a higher risk of experiencing physical violence.  In the same vein, females who had partners that drink alcohol experienced sexual violence more than those whose partners do not drink alcohol.   In order to determine any real evidence between alcohol and gender based violence, case control and cohort studies are needed.  This is cross sectional study based on face- to- face interviews and limits conclusions about causality. More research is clearly needed to explore determinants of domestic violence against men and women in Nigeria. In addition,  the prevalence rates of gender based violence reported in this study could have been underestimated because of beliefs that issues concerning families and intimate relationships should not be discussed flippantly as  they are seen as a ‘private matter’. Furthermore, there is the need to explore in-depth gender based violence as it relates to men as the victims.

Conclusion

High prevalence of gender based violence has been reported by this study. Both men and women have been documented to be victims of this act. This has great implications for the general well being as it affects all spheres of lives. Intervention strategies such public enlightenment on the effects of gender based violence on both women and men in all relationships should be carried out.  In addition, pre-marital counseling and conflict resolution strategies especially among couples should be strongly intensified to ameliorate the situation.

References

  1. Cascardi, M., Langhinrichsen, J., Vivian, D.  (1992).  Marital Aggression; Impact, injury and health correlates for husbands and wives.  Archives of internal medicine, 152, 1178-1184.
  2. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Violence
  3. Krug, E., Dahlberg, L., & Mercy, J. (2002): World Report on Violence and health.  WHO Geneva, Switzerland 372.
  4. Saltzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA. Intimate partner violence surveillance: uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999
  5. Heise, L, Ellsberg, M., Guttemoeller, M. (1999).  Ending Violence against women.  Popul Rep, L. 11, 1-43.
  6. Zambia Demographic and Health Survey. 2001-2002.
  7. World Health Organization 2005.  WHO Multi-Country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women.  Summary report of initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses.  Geneva, World Health Organization.
  8. Saidi, H, Awori, K.O, Odula P. (2008). Gender associated violence at a woman’s hospital in Nairobi. East African Medical Journal, Vol. 85 No. 7, 347-354:
  9. Okemgbo, C.N., Omideyi, A.K., Odimegwu, C.O., (2002).  Prevalence, patterns and correlates of domestic violence in selected Igbo communities of Imo State.  Nig. Afr. J. Reprod Health,  6 (2), 101-114.
  10. Fawole, O.I., Ajuwon, A.J, Osungbade, K.O. & Fawega, C.O. (2002).  Prevalence and nature of violence to young female hawkers in Motor parks in South Western Nigeria.  Health Edu Res, 102:230-238.
  11. Fawole, O.I, Ajuwon, A.J., Osungbade, K.O, (2005). Evaluation of Interventions to prevent gender-based violence among young female apprentices in Ibadan, Nigeria.  Health Education, vol 105 No. 3, pg 186-203.
  12. National Population Commission (NPC) (Nigeria) and ICF Macro 2009: Nigerian Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS). Abuja, Nigeria: National Population Commission and ICF Macro 2003..
  13. World Health Organization. Violence, Injuries and Disabilities. Biennial 2006 Reports. WHO. Geneva.
  14. Heise. L.L, (1998).  Violence against women.  An integral Ecological Framework.  Violence Against Women,  Vol 4. No. 3. 262-290.
  15. Hindin, M.J., Adair, L.S. (2002).  Who’s at risk?  Factors associated with intimate partner violence in the Philippines.  Social Science and Medicine, 55(8), 1385-1399.
  16. Jewekes, R. Levin, J., Penn-Kakana, C. (2002).  Risk factors for domestic violence: findings from a South African cross-sectional study.  Social Science and Medicine, 55(9), 1603-1617.
  17. Karamagi, C.A., Tumwine, J.K., Tylleskar, T., Heggenhougen, K. (2006). Intimate partner violence against women in eastern Uganda:  implication for HIV prevention.  BMC Public Health, 6:284.
  18. Shah, B.V., and Barnwell, B.G.  (2003). Joint Statistics Meetings - Section on Survey Research Methods, 3778-3781.
  19. Colton  T. (1974). Statistical inference. In Statistics in Medicine. 1sted. pp. 99-252. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
  20. Anderson, N,  Ho-foster, A., Mitchell, S., Scheepers, E., &  Goldstien, S. (2007). Risk factors for domestic physical violence: national cross-sectional household surveys in eight southern African countries; British Medical Journal on Women’s Health, 7, 11.
  21. Wijma, B., Schei, B. and  Swahnberg (2003).  Emotional, physical and sexual abuse in patients visiting gynecology clinics:  a Nordic cross-sectional study.  The Lancet. 361 (375), 2107-2113.
  22. Arulogun O.S. and Jidda K.A. (2011).  Experiences of Violence among Pregnant Women Attending Ante Natal Clinics in Selected Hospitals in Abuja, Nigeria.  Sierra Leone Journal of Biomedical Research 3(1), 43 - 48
  23. Moreno, C.J., Jasen, J., Ellsberg, M.,  Heise L., and  Watts, C.  (2006).  Prevalence of intimate partner violence:  findings from the W.H.O multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence; The Lancet 368, 1260-1269.
  24. Tjaden, P. (2000).  Full report of the prevalence, incidence and consequences of violence against women survey.  Washington DC.  Department of justice, publication number NCJ 183781.
  25. Hotaling, G.T, Sugarman, D.B. (1990).  At risk marker analysis of assaulted wives.  Journal of Family Violence, 5, 1-14.
  26. Ghazizadeh A. Domestic violence: a cross sectional study in an Iranain city. East Mediterranean Health Journal/ vol 11. (5 -6): 880-7
  27. Coker, D. (1999). Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo peacemaking. UCLA Law Review, 47, 1-111.

Copyright 2011 - Women's Health and Action Research Centre, Benin City, Nigeria

Home Faq Resources Email Bioline
© Bioline International, 1989 - 2024, Site last up-dated on 01-Sep-2022.
Site created and maintained by the Reference Center on Environmental Information, CRIA, Brazil
System hosted by the Google Cloud Platform, GCP, Brazil