Prevalence and Predictors of Intimate Partner Violence in Mexican and Non-Mexican Hispanic Women from SEPA

Sunday, 30 July 2017: 8:50 AM

Nilda (Nena) Peragallo Montano, DrPH1
Young Ju Kim, PhD2
Rosa M. Gonzalez-Guarda, PhD, MPH3
Rosina Cianelli, PhD, MPH, RN, FAAN, IBCLC1
Natalia Villegas, PhD, MSN, RN, IBCLC4
(1)Schol of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA
(2)College of Nursing, Sungshin Women's University, Seoul, Korea, Republic of (South)
(3)School of Nursing, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
(4)School of Nursing and Health Studies, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

Purpose:  The purpose of the study was to examine prevalence and difference of intimate partner violence (IPV) between Mexican and non-Mexican Hispanic women residing in the United States. In addition, this study investigated what factors predict IPV in each of two Hispanic subgroups.

Methods:  All of measures were drawn from baseline data of two separate SEPA (Salud-Health, Educacion-Education, Prevencion-Prevention and Autocuidado-Self-care) projects. The SEPA projects are culturally specific, theoretically based group HIV-risk reduction interventions for adult Hispanic women. They consist of five small-group sessions covering HIV and STI prevention, violence prevention, condom use, and communication with partner. The SEPA I includes 529 Mexican Hispanic women in Chicago. The SEPA II has 508 non-Mexican Hispanic women in South Florida. The differences and predictabilities of sociodemographic factors (age, education, income, employment, insurance status, number of partner, age difference with partner), acculturation, depressive symptoms, self-esteem, protective sexual communication with partner, alcohol or drug abuse, and physical or sexual abuse during childhood on IPV were assessed by using t-test, chi-square test, and logistic multivariate regression. IPV in the past 3months was measured with 12 questions of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. Any positive responses to one or more questions relating to physical or psychological abuse were categorized as being exposed to IPV.

Results:  Although the prevalence of IPV was very high in both groups, it was significantly higher in Mexican Hispanic women (79.1%) than non-Mexican Hispanic women (63.5%). Mexican Hispanic women were significantly younger, less educated, less Americanized, poorer, more sexually abused during childhood, and more likely to have partners with a heavy drinking than non-Mexican Hispanic women. Additionally, they had significantly more depressive symptoms and lower self-esteem. Depression and partners’ heavy drinking were significant risk factors for IPV in women born in Mexico. Educational years, depression, and partners’ alcohol or drug abuse were predictors in women born in other Latin American countries than Mexico.

Conclusion: IPV Interventions should address the culturally specific needs of Hispanic women from different nationalities and geographical locations in the U.S.