3.8 Article

Intimate partner violence in pregnancy among antenatal attendees at health facilities in West Pokot county, Kenya

期刊

PAN AFRICAN MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 28, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AFRICAN FIELD EPIDEMIOLOGY NETWORK-AFENET
DOI: 10.11604/pamj.2017.28.229.8840

关键词

Intimate partner violence; pregnancy; prevalence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The objective of this study was to investigate factors contributing to intimate partner violence in pregnancy among antenatal attendees at the health facilities in West Pokot Sub-County. The study was done in West Pokot Sub-County. Methods: Using cross sectional study design, a total of 238 antenatal attendees were systematically sampled for the study. Four focused group discussions and 20 key informant interviews were conducted for qualitative data collection. Qualitative data was consolidated into various themes while bivariate and logistic regression analysis was done to determine factors associated with experience of IPV in the index of pregnancy with P <= 0.05 being considered significant. Results: The study found prevalence of overall, physical, psychological and sexual IPV in pregnancy to be 66.9%, 29.9%, 55.8% and 39.2% respectively. After adjusting for confounders, Overall IPV in pregnancy was significantly associated with Alcohol intake by partner (OR 2.116, 95% CI 1.950-2.260, P 0.000) and partner's level of education (OR 1.265, 95% CI 1.079-1.487, P 0.031), while psychological and sexual IPV was significantly associated with age of partner (OR 2.292, 95% CI 2.123-2.722, P 0.007) and age of pregnant women (OR 1.174, 95% CI 1.001-1.397 P 0.049) respectively. The care offered to antenatal attendees experiencing IPV was not in line with WHO guidelines and standard on handling gender based violence cases. Conclusion: The study finding indicates that IPV in pregnancy among antenatal attendees in West Pokot is very high. This unearths the gaps on gender based violence interventions in the maternal and child health programs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据