4.3 Article

Violence against women in intimate relationships: Explanations and suggestions for interventions as perceived by healthcare workers, local leaders, and trusted community members in a northern district of Vietnam

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 35, Issue 6, Pages 640-647

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/14034940701431130

Keywords

content analysis; domestic violence; focus-group discussions; intimate partner violence; public health; Vietnam; women's health

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: This study explored professionals' and trusted community inhabitants' explanations of the violence between intimate partners and their suggestions for preventive activities. It was performed in a rural district in northern Vietnam. Methods: A total of 20 men and 20 women were strategically selected for focus-group discussions and the analyses followed the procedure for qualitative thematic content analysis. Results: It was pointed out that violence against women was not discussed openly in the community and women subjected to violence kept silent and avoided seeking help in order not to reveal what was happening in the family. The informants perceived the violence as an interplay between individual and family-related factors and sociocultural norms and practices where Confucian ideology exerted a strong influence. When it came to prevention, there was a strong belief in educating the people and in enforcing policy and law. Conclusions: As described by the informants, traditional attitudes to gender roles and women's power disadvantage are found to be behind most of the explanations for intimate partner violence. Collaboration between sectors at local level, between the health sector and other bodies, and with community leaders as spokesmen would help to improve openness and reduce society's tolerance of violence against women. The mass media also have an important role to play.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available