Prevalence of Rural Intimate Partner Violence in 16 US States, 2005

Authors

  • Matthew J. Breiding PhD,

    1. Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Jessica S. Ziembroski PhD,

    1. Augusta State University, Department of Sociology, Social Work, and Criminal Justice, Augusta, Ga.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michele C. Black PhD

    1. Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga.
    Search for more papers by this author

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For further information, contact: Matthew J. Breiding, PhD, Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop F-64, Atlanta, GA 30341; e-mail mbreiding@cdc.gov.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Context: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a public health problem that affects people across the entire social spectrum. However, no previous population-based public health studies have examined the prevalence of IPV in rural areas of the United States. Research on IPV in rural areas is especially important given that there are relatively fewer resources available in rural areas for the prevention of IPV. Methods: In 2005, over 25,000 rural residents in 16 states completed the first-ever IPV module within the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The BRFSS is a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-sponsored annual random-digit-dialed telephone survey. The BRFSS provides surveillance of health behaviors and health risks among the non-institutionalized adult population of the United States and several US territories. Findings: Overall, 26.7% of rural women and 15.5% of rural men reported some form of lifetime IPV victimization, similar to the prevalence found among men and women in non-rural areas. Within several states, those living in rural areas evidenced significantly higher lifetime IPV prevalence than those in non-rural areas. Conclusion: IPV is a significant public health problem in rural areas, affecting a similar portion of the population as in non-rural areas. More research is needed to examine how the experience of IPV is different for rural and non-rural residents.

Ancillary