The Associated Factors of Domestic Violence against Infertile Women

Infertility Stigma and Domestic Violence: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Infertility stigma is one of the well-known psychosocial problems and can disrupt the mental health of infertile women and their family relationships. This study evaluated the relation between infertility stigma and domestic violence in infertile women.

Material and Methods

This was a cross-sectional study that was conducted on 300 women who referred to the Fertility and Infertility Center of Isfahan, IRAN (2022-2023) using a convenient sampling method. Data gathering tools were WHO Standard Domestic Violence questionnaire and Female Infertility Stigma Instrument (ISI-F). Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 16 (Pearson correlation, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, and multivariate linear regression analysis). This article has been edited based on the STROBE checklist.

Results

The mean (SD) score of infertility stigma was 64.79 (14.70) (out of 100). The mean (SD) score of domestic violence was 10.94 (16.61) (out of 100). There was a significant positive relation between the score of infertility stigma and the total score of domestic violence, physical violence, mental violence, and sexual violence p<0.001. The highest correlation was found between mental violence and infertility stigma (r = 0.359). Economic status (p = 0.001), infertility factor (p = 0.007), and infertility stigma p<0.001 were predictors of domestic violence.

Conclusions

Infertility stigma was related with all the aspects of domestic violence. Infertility stigma was a predictor of domestic violence. It is necessary to plan interventions to deal with infertility stigma and domestic violence in infertile women. Psychological counseling should be considered along with infertility treatment.

Prevalence of intimate partner violence against infertile women in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Infertility and intimate partner violence (IPV) are of serious concern globally, yet the prevalence of IPV against infertile women has not been quantified at the regional or global level. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of IPV against infertile women and its variation in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

We did a systematic literature search of 11 databases for articles published between database inception and Sept 30, 2021, and performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled prevalence and 95% CI of IPV against infertile women in LMICs. We used subgroup analyses and meta-regressions to explore variation in the prevalence by study period (2010 and before vs after 2010), study region (Africa, west Asia, south Asia, and east Asia), type of infertility (primary or secondary), risk of bias (high, moderate, or low), sample size (continuous variable), and measuring tools (the modified Abuse Assessment Screen, the WHO Violence Against Women instrument, or the revised Conflict Tactics Scales). This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021248448.

FINDINGS

Of 2661 references identified (2637 via database searches and 24 via secondary searches), 120 full-text articles were reviewed, and we identified 30 relevant studies conducted in nine LMICs between 2000 and 2019. 25 studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis, with a total sample size of 7164 participants. The 12-month prevalence of IPV among infertile women was 36·0% (95% CI 20·4-55·2), compared with a lifetime prevalence of 47·2% (31·7-63·3). The most common type of IPV was psychological violence, with a prevalence of 24·6% (11·3-45·6) over 12 months and 51·5% (38·8-64·0) over a lifetime (slightly higher than the pooled overall rate due to different data sources), respectively; followed by physical violence (11·9% [5·2-25·1] and 20·2% [12·1-31·7]); sexual violence (8·7% [2·6-25·0] and 11·5% [6·1-20·7]); and economic coercion (2·6% [0·4-13·7] and 9·8% [5·7-16·5]). Significant variations of lifetime prevalence estimates were presented by study period (R2=39·46%), region (R2=50·95%), and measuring tools (R2=54·27%).

INTERPRETATION

A high prevalence of IPV against infertile women is evident despite heterogeneity across studies. IPV screening, counselling, and structural interventions should be tailored to address this urgent issue at multiple levels of society.

FUNDING

China Medical Board and WHO.