↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of intimate partner violence and associated physical injuries between cohabitating and married women: a 5-year medical chart review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
105 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of intimate partner violence and associated physical injuries between cohabitating and married women: a 5-year medical chart review
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3879-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janet Yuen-Ha Wong, Anna Wai-Man Choi, Daniel Yee-Tak Fong, Edmond Pui Hang Choi, John Kit-Shing Wong, Fung Ling So, Chu-Leung Lau, Chak-Wah Kam

Abstract

Cohabitation, referring to a co-residential romantic relationship between two intimate partners without a marriage license, has become widely accepted in contemporary societies. It has been found that cohabitating women have a higher risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) than married women. However, as yet, no studies have investigated the level and pattern of IPV-associated physical injuries and its mental health impact on cohabitating women. Therefore, we aim to compare IPV-associated physical injuries between cohabitating and married women by conducting a review of 5-year medical records from the emergency departments of two major public hospitals in Hong Kong. This is a retrospective cohort study. Using two computerized systems, we identified the medical charts of 1011 women who had experienced IPV and presented at emergency departments between 2010 and 2014, of which, 132 were cohabitating and 833 were married. Cohabitating women were significantly younger (p-value < .0001) and had obtained a higher educational level (p-value = .008) than married women. After adjusting for those two variables, the logistic regression models showed that cohabitating women were approximately 2.1 times more likely than married women to present with head, neck, or facial injuries (OR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.30-3.40, p = .002), and the risk of having multiple injuries in different locations (head, neck, face, torso, limbs) was almost twice that for cohabitating women compared with married women (OR = 1.82, 95% CI = 1.25-2.65, p = .001). Furthermore, cohabitating women were almost two times as likely as married women to experience more than one method of physical violence (OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 1.18-2.51, p = .005). There were no significant differences regarding mental health, police reporting, and discharge plans. Owing to recent social changes to the family structure, including the growing acceptance of cohabitation, it is essential that a screening program for IPV is established for cohabitating women, as well as the inclusion of IPV content in medical and nursing curriculums and in-service training.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 105 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 105 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 16 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 10%
Researcher 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Other 22 21%
Unknown 30 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 15%
Psychology 15 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 15 14%
Social Sciences 14 13%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 31 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,845,266
of 25,711,998 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#2,157
of 17,781 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,370
of 419,018 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#27
of 202 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,711,998 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,781 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,018 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 202 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.