Study On Spousal Violence: Psychosocial Risk Factors And Its Strategies Of Psychological Preventive Intervention

PartⅠ: Study on psychosocial risk factors of spousal violenceObjectiveTo investigate the psychosocial risk factors of spousal violence (SV) in order to provide systematic basis of SV prevention.Methods1. By using multistage stratified sampling methods, 3087 households were selected from Chenzhou city in Hunan Province. After screening, 384 households had SV. 80 households among them were randomly selected for study, in which 80 perpetrators were in the domestic violence (DV) group. For the non-DV group, after matching of family's structure, 96 households without violence behavior were selected, in which after matching of gender and age of perpetrators, 96 normal controls were enrolled.2. A semi-structured and face-to-face interview was used in this study. A designed study DV questionnaire, the self-report Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90), Life Event Scale (LES), Trait Coping Style Questionnaire (TCSQ) and Social Supporting Rating Scale (SSRS) were administered to the study subjects.Results1. The overall prevalence of SV was 12.4%. The ratio of male (81.3%) was more than female (18.7%) in perpetrators, but female (81.3%) was more than male (19%) in victims (P<0.05). Age 31 to 40 was most common in SV family (60, 75%). The education level and economic income in DV group were significantly lower than non-DV group (P<0.05) with the unemployment rate was higher in DV group than in non-DV group (P<0.05), However, the economic income of perpetrators were higher in victim groups (P<0.01).2. The family systems of patriarchy and freedom were significantly more, and system of democracy was significantly less reported by DV group than the non-DV group (P<0.01). unemployment and gambling was more in DV group than the non-DV group (P<0.01). The viewpoints acceptance DV and acceptance DV under some circumstances in perpetrators were significantly more than the non-DV group.3. Perpetrators and victims respectively reported that the most common form of SV was both emotional and physical abuse (53.8% and 47.5%, respectively), then emotional abuse (35% and 36.3%, respectively), and the less was combined emotional, physical and sexual abuse (1.3% and 3.8%, respectively).5. Psychoticism factor scores of SCL-90, total scores and negative scores of LES and the EPQ-N scores were higher, and scores of subjective social support, objective support and general supports were lower in DV group than the non-DV group. Negative coping style and EPQ-P scores were respectively higher, but lower in perpetrators than victims, somatization factor scores of SCL-90 were higher in DV group than the non-DV group with one child. Depression factor score of SCL-90 was higher in DV group than the non-DV group with many children. The total score and depression, somatization and anxiety factors scores of SCL-90 were higher in perpetrators than the victims with many children.6. Risk factors for SV were found as attitude of acceptance DV, acceptance of DV under some circumstances, gambling, high psychoticism factor scores of SCL-90, unemployment, lack of democracy family system, less subjective support, and more negative life events.Conclusions1. The overall prevalence of SV was 12.4%. Most of the perpetrators were male and most of the victims were female. The 31 to 40 age group was most common in DV family. Individual with the lower education level, lower economic status, and unemployment was more likely to perpetrate. The family system of patriarchy and freedom may more easily to manifest SV.2. The most frequent form of SV was both emotional and physical abuse, then emotional abuse, and combined emotional, physical and sexual abuse was the least. Individuals with more psychoticism characteristic, sensitive and doubt condition, neurotic personality, more negative life events, more negative coping styles, and less social supports were more prone to have perpetration, victims had more psychoticism personality than perpetrators, households with one or many children, was most highly found on SV. This may suggest that psychological intervention for the SV in couples with one or many children are critically needed.3. Risk factors for SV were gambling, the attitude of acceptance SV, sensitive and doubt condition, unemployment, lack of family system of democracy, few subjective support, and more negative life events, preventive intervention SV by aiming directly at risk factors of SV is very important. PARTⅡStudy on Premarital Violence Among the Newly-married CoupleObjectiveTo explore the patterns of premarital violence among the newly-married couples within past one year, and to examine the correlation between premarital violence and different patterns of childhood abuse, in order to provide foundation for SV intervention.MethodsBy using cross-sectional survey, two of the five catchment areas in Changsha city were randomly selected. Totally 317 newly-married couples in Changsha city were interviewed. The intimate partner violence (IPV) was assessed with a self-compiled inventory. Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ) and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-28 item Short Form (CTQ-SF) were consecutively administrated. We defined the SV groups when at least had once premarital violence, the others was in the non-SV group.Results1. Male to female violence in the one year before get married: husbands and wives reported IPV rate was 106 (33.4%) and 81 (25.6%). In which experienced emotional abuse only were 100 (31.5%) and 73 (23.0%) respectively. The common form of emotional abuse reported was ignorance, 87 (27.4%) and 71 (22.4%) respectively. female experienced both emotional and physical abuses rate was 2 (0.6%) and 3 (0.9%) respectively. husbands reported that 1 (0.3%) female experienced physical abuse, and 1 (0.3%) females experienced emotional, physical and sexual abuses while wives reported that 2 (0.6%) females experienced emotional and sexual abuses.2. Female to male violence in the one year before get married: husbands and wives respectively reported IPV rate was 101 (31.9%) and 115 (36.3%). In which experienced emotional abuse only were 92 (29.0%) and 104 (32.8%) respectively. The common form of emotional abuse reported was ignorance, 87 (27.4%) and 102 (32.2%) respectively. For male experienced physical abuses rate was 8 (2.5%) and 3 (0.9%) respectively, while 7 (2.2%) and 8 (2.5%) male experienced both emotional and physical abuses.3. The common reasons of premarital violence were personality trait, coping skills, poor communication and economic status. The attitudes of acceptance DV, acceptance DV under some circumstances, premarital cohabitation, alcohol history, and gambling in SV group were more frequent than the no-SV group (P<0.05, or P<0.01). There was significantly difference between SV group and no-SV group on employment(P<0.05), in which the ratio of cadre or workers (54.9%) in SV group was more than in no-SV group (46.9%).4. The SV group had significantly higher scores of emotional abuse, physical abuse and total scores of CTQ-SF than that the no-SV group. witnessing family violence as a child in SV groups was more(77.0%) than those(50.3%) of no-DV groups (χ2=45.114, P<0.001, OR=3.323, 95%CI: 2.322-4.755). The female SV groups had significantly higher scores of sexual abuse than the female no-SV groups.Conclusions 1. About one-third newly-married couples reported premarital violence in the year before marry, male to female violence rate was similar as female to male violence, occurrence of emotional abuse was much higher than that of physical abuse and sexual violence in the newly-married couples, ignorance was the most common form, and it may cause physical and sexual abuse with influence marital quality. It was necessary to raise public awareness and to develop an intervention program toward the new- married couples about premarital IPV.2. The common reasons of premarital violence were personality trait, coping skills, poor communication and economic status, premarital violence was correlated with employment, cohabitation, gambling, alcohol, the attitudes of acceptance DV, acceptance DV under some circumstances, witnessing family violence as a child, and childhood abuse.PartⅢ: The Comparate Study of Psychological PreventiveIntervention of Spousal Violence to Newly-married CouplesObjectTo evaluate psychological preventive intervention of high-risk spousal violence groups for prevention of future SV.Methods 93 high-risk couples were screened from 317 newly-married couples were randomly assigned to research group and control group. For the research group, session about psychological education of SV and counseling about prevention of SV were given. For the control group, no not intervention was received. A self-designed SV questionnaire, Neurosis and Psychosis Screening Scale, the self-report Eysenck's Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Simplified Coping Style Questionnaire (SCSQ), Social Supporting Rating Scale (SSRS), and Childhood Trauma Questionnaire-28 item Short Form (CTQ-SF) were administered in two groups before intervention. After follow-up six months, a self-designed SV questionnaire and Short Marital-Adjustment and Prediction Test (SMAPT) were administered again. Total 25 couples of research group completed follow up study while 37 couples in control group completed.Results1. There was no difference on age, gender, education levels, employment, economic status, cohabitation history, alcohol abuse, drinking frequency, smoking, gambling, habitation condition, witnessing DV, childhood abuse, and scores of every scales between two groups.2. To compare attitudes on domestic violence between two groups after follow-up six months, the viewpoints of acceptance DV, acceptance under some circumstances of research group were significantly lower than control group (P<0.01). After follow-up six months, the viewpoints of acceptance DV, and acceptance under some circumstances of research group is lower but did not have statistical significantly (P>0.05). The total scores of SMAPT of intervention group was significantly higher than that of control group after follow-up (P<0.01) 3. Patterns of SV to female: wives reported as follow: the percentage of abused in research group was significantly lower than that control group after follow-up six months (56% vs. 81.8%, P<0.05). more or equal two types of SV in research group lower than control group after follow-up six months (P>0.05). husbands reported that the percentage of total abused wives in research group was significantly lower than those of control group after follow-up six months (48% vs. 78.4%, P<0.05). wives reported that the ratio of abused wives in research group was significantly lower after follow-up six months (56% vs. 68%,P>0.05).4. Patterns of SV to male. wives reported that the percentage of abused men in research group was significantly lower than those of control group after follow-up six months (56% vs. 83.8%, P<0.05). more or equal two types of SV in research group significantly lower than control group after follow-up six months (P<0.05). The percentage of total abused husbands, physical violence in research group lower after follow-up six months (56% vs. 68%,P>0.05). while husbands reported was similar as what wives reported.5. Frequency of abused female between two groups, husbands reported that there was no difference between two groups on the frequency of abused wives before intervention (P>0.05). the frequency of abused wives in research group were significantly lower than in control group after follow-up six months (P<0.05). the frequency of abused wives decreased in research group (P>0.05) while the frequency of abused wives increased in control group after six months follow-up (P<0.05).6. Frequency of abused males between two groups, wives reported that there was no difference between two groups on the frequency of abused husbands before intervention (P>0.05). The frequency of abused husbands in research group were significantly lower than in control group after follow-up six months (P<0.01). The frequency of abused husbands decreased (P>0.05) while the frequency of abused husbands in control group significantly increased after follow-up six months (P<0.05).Conclusions1. Psychological preventive intervention of SV was effective on the attitudes on SV. The viewpoints of acceptance DV, acceptance under some circumstances decreased significantly, but denying SV rising significantly.2. Psychological preventive intervention of SV may also decrease occurrence of SV, decrease progress of SV, decrease frequency of SV and improve marital quality and adjustment.