ライフサイエンスコーパス: intimate partner violence

1 rtner violence, and both physical and sexual intimate partner violence.

2 y participants endorsed the acceptability of intimate partner violence.

3 ore, days unable to work, or perpetration of intimate partner violence.

4 ported emotional distress, and none reported intimate partner violence.

5 factors to affect individual women's risk of intimate partner violence.

6 isk factor for experiencing and perpetrating intimate partner violence.

7 r association between political violence and intimate-partner violence.

8 was significantly related to higher odds of intimate-partner violence.

9 alence ratio 1.8 [-2.4 to 6.0]; p=0.25), and intimate partner violence (adjusted prevalence ratio 3.0

10 Intimate partner violence affects millions of people glo

11 On average, intimate partner violence affects nearly one in three wo

12 Intimate partner violence against women is a major publi

13 personal beliefs about the acceptability of intimate partner violence and perceived norms about inti

14 ildhood trauma were associated with physical intimate partner violence, and both physical and sexual

15 ints of care, support for women experiencing intimate partner violence, and control of gun ownership

16 hysical abuse, sexual abuse, and exposure to intimate partner violence, and deployment-related trauma

17 l activation, suicidal thoughts or attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of

18 core, days unable to work, suicide attempts, intimate partner violence, and resource use and costs of

19 ing abuse and neglect, as well as addressing intimate partner violence, and to maintain vigilance abo

20 iolence is associated with increased odds of intimate-partner violence, and exposure to many traumas

21 More than 12 million adults experience intimate partner violence annually and more than 10 mill

22 pproximately 1.5 million US women experience intimate partner violence annually.

23 these standards were less likely to condone intimate partner violence (AORs ranged from 0.29 to 0.70

24 Four participants reported intimate partner violence as a result of self-test distr

25 survey variant were more likely to perceive intimate partner violence as normative (AORs ranged from

26 survey variant were less likely to perceive intimate partner violence as normative (AORs ranged from

27 a indicate there is widespread acceptance of intimate partner violence, contributing to an adverse he

28 No participants reported intimate partner violence due to HIV testing.

29 not increase intimate partner violence (one intimate partner violence event related to partner notif

30 l risks of an interpersonal nature (that is, intimate partner violence, family conflict) but not OXTR

31 nd experiences of childhood trauma, physical intimate partner violence, harsh parenting, and other fa

32 Intimate partner violence has been noted in 3-13% of pre

33 ards of behavior were more likely to condone intimate partner violence in a greater number of vignett

34 d norms, we asked about the acceptability of intimate partner violence in five different vignettes.

35 d increased assessment and interventions for intimate partner violence in health-care settings.

36 e partner violence and perceived norms about intimate partner violence in the community.

37 for physical and 2.23 (1.49-3.35) for sexual intimate-partner violence in respondents whose husbands

38 osure were associated with increased odds of intimate-partner violence in the Gaza Strip only.

39 violence was associated with male-to-female intimate-partner violence in the occupied Palestinian te

40 avior problems associated with resolution of intimate partner violence (IPV) after an investigation f

41 Intimate partner violence (IPV) among men who have sex w

42 Intimate partner violence (IPV) and heavy drinking are c

43 the past-year prevalence of male-perpetrated intimate partner violence (IPV) and risk factors is esse

44 Intimate partner violence (IPV) and termination of pregn

45 Evidence suggests that intimate partner violence (IPV) experience is associated

46 Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been described as be

47 There are few longitudinal estimates of intimate partner violence (IPV) incidence and continuati

48 Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with HIV i

49 ase for the assumed psychological impacts of intimate partner violence (IPV) is derived primarily fro

50 opted laws restricting firearm possession by intimate partner violence (IPV) offenders.

51 Children with known exposure to intimate partner violence (IPV) or maternal depression a

52 icit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and later intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration.

53 We tested a model including these factors, intimate partner violence (IPV), and continuing adversit

54 niques to ensure the best care for patients: intimate partner violence (IPV), mental health issues, a

55 influence spatial variations in the risk of intimate partner violence (IPV).

56 dation statement on screening for family and intimate partner violence (IPV).

57 insufficient to support screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV).

58 addition to being a breach of human rights, intimate partner violence is associated with serious pub

59 Family and intimate partner violence is common in the United States

60 Although the literature on family and intimate partner violence is extensive, few studies prov

61 cian screening, counseling, and referral for intimate partner violence is lacking.

62 between social constructions of masculinity, intimate partner violence, male dominance in relationshi

63 Intimate-partner violence might increase during and afte

64 tion models, and many forms of violence--ie, intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual assault, f

65 ationship status and women's risk behaviour, intimate partner violence (odds ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.15-

66 Assisted partner services did not increase intimate partner violence (one intimate partner violence

67 ns about their perpetration or experience of intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence

68 Intimate partner violence perpetration resulting in inju

69 ood trauma were associated with all forms of intimate partner violence perpetration.

70 Intimate partner violence persistence was associated wit

71 omicide risk include increased investment in intimate partner violence prevention, risk assessments a

72 There were 4 instances of intimate partner violence related to study participation

73 ld physical abuse, homicide, youth violence, intimate partner violence, self-directed injury, firearm

74 ld physical abuse, homicide, youth violence, intimate partner violence, self-directed injury, firearm

75 des child abuse and neglect, youth violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and elder ab

76 most severe forms of violence against women: intimate partner violence; sexual abuse by non-intimate

77 ss personal beliefs or perceived norms about intimate partner violence should attempt to eliminate, a

78 onse bias in telephone prevalence studies of intimate partner violence, the authors asked women visit

79 DHS methods used to elicit attitudes toward intimate partner violence, to date there has been little

80 0.08); other outcomes (days unable to work, intimate partner violence toward females) did not statis

81 Intimate partner violence was conceptualized as physical

82 n (standard deviation) number of items where intimate partner violence was endorsed as acceptable was

83 Intimate partner violence, which describes physical or s

84 ly diagnosed HIV without a recent history of intimate partner violence who had not yet or had only re