Economic Abuse by An Intimate Partner and Its Associations with Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health

Abstract

What is the prevalence and impact of economic abuse by an intimate partner in the population? Does experience of economic abuse compound the effects of other intimate partner violence (IPV) types on women’s mental health and financial wellbeing? This study used a population-based and representative sample of 1,431 ever-partnered New Zealand women to explore associations between their experience of economic abuse and a range of mental health and financial outcomes. Logistic regression was conducted, and Adjusted Odds Ratios (AORs) were reported. Overall, 15% of ever-partnered women experienced any economic abuse, with the most prevalent act “refused to give money for household expenses,” reported by 8.8% of the sample. Women who experienced economic abuse presented increased risk for poor mental health (AORs ranging from 2.59 for poor mental health to 4.89 for having a diagnosed health mental health condition) and financial insecurity outcomes (AORs ranging from 3.09 for receiving government benefits to 4.72 for experiencing food insecurity) compared with women who experienced no IPV or women who had experienced any IPV (physical, sexual, psychological or controlling behavior) excluding economic abuse. Findings suggest that economic abuse may compound effects of IPV and highlight the importance of acknowledging and addressing economically abusive behaviors and their long-term detrimental impact on women’s mental health and financial security. Implementing wider forms of safety planning that address issues of economic independence and security, and social support are needed to augment plans that focus on physical safety.

Keywords

Introduction

In public perception, economic abuse in intimate relationships is not widely recognized as a type of intimate partner violence (IPV) (Corrie et al., 2013; Milne et al., 2018). This is exacerbated by a lack of data on the prevalence and impact of economic abuse at the population level. However, within the field of domestic violence research, it has long been recognized that economic abuse is often used as part of a pattern of behaviors for maintaining power and control within an abusive relationship (Adams et al., 2008; Stylianou et al., 2013), and can be conceptualized within frameworks such as coercive control theory (Stark, 2023). Economic abuse has also been characterized as less severe than physical or sexual IPV (despite contrary accounts from survivors) (Gibbs et al., 2018), as a type of psychological IPV (Postmus et al., 2012), or as an outcome of IPV (Christy et al., 2022; Postmus et al., 2018). Recognition of economic abuse as a distinct IPV construct has increased since the early 2000s, as marked by the development of the Scale of Economic Abuse (Adams et al., 2008; Christy et al., 2022; Haifley, 2021; Postmus et al., 2018). Many countries, including New Zealand (Jury et al., 2017) and the UK (Christy et al., 2022), are now attempting to integrate acknowledgment of economically abusive behaviors as a type of IPV into wider understandings and legislative responses.

Within an intimate relationship, economic abuse has been defined as tactics used by an abuser to control their partner’s ability to acquire or maintain economic assets, with abusive behaviors often delineated into the constructs of economic control, employment sabotage, and economic exploitation (Adams et al., 2008; Krigel & Benjamin, 2021). Economic control includes behaviors such as monitoring and restricting a person’s ability to use financial resources, including for household necessities and resources already belonging to the victim (Adams et al., 2008; Postmus et al., 2016). Disallowing persons to participate in important financial decisions can debilitate and reduce victims’ financial self-efficacy (Hahn & Postmus, 2014). Employment sabotage may comprise tactics such as refusing to provide childcare during work or interviews, showing up or harassing their partner at the workplace, or interfering by turning off alarm clocks, breaking cars, or disrupting sleep (Adams et al., 2008). Further, abusers may interfere with self-improvement or educational activities aimed to improve their partner’s marketability in the workforce (Adams et al., 2008). Tactics for economic exploitation can involve the abuser missing bill payments in their partner’s name, spending money needed for basic needs, intentionally building up debt in the victim’s name, taking out loans unbeknownst to the abused, intentionally ruining the victim’s credit, forcing partners to hand over benefit money such as income support and tax credits, or forcing victims to generate fraudulent income that is then appropriated by abusers and which places victims at risk of criminal penalties (Adams et al., 2008; Corrie et al., 2013; Howard & Skipp, 2015; Jury et al., 2017; Marriott & Lai, 2023; Stylianou et al., 2013). It is important to note that, much like coercive control, economic abuse can take many different forms targeting a victim/survivor’s unique characteristics (Stark, 2023). For example, specific tactics may be used to exert control over disabled or elderly victims, whereby legal or capability-driven means are used to limit access to resources (New Zealand Family Violence Death Review Committee, 2022). As such, behavioral assessments are likely to underestimate the true prevalence and impact of this form of violence.

Like other types of IPV, economic abuse is considered a gendered issue, as the majority of victims are women (Corrie et al., 2013). A common and immediate consequence of economic abuse is that victims become financially dependent on their abusive partners, which may also inhibit their ability to leave the relationship (Adams et al., 2008). Leaving an economically abusive relationship can threaten women’s standard of living immediately after leaving and can affect long-term economic options and prosperity (Adams et al., 2008). Financial dependency on an abusive partner has been reported as a key reason why leaving abusers can be so difficult (Postmus et al., 2018).

As with other types of IPV, economic abuse has been found to impact victims’ wellbeing and mental and physical health (Johnson et al., 2022; Voth Schrag et al., 2019). Experience of economic abuse has been associated with mental health conditions, namely post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression (Johnson et al., 2022). Through generating fear, isolation, and dependency in women’s lives, economic abuse can impact women’s mental health, even in the absence of physical IPV types (Gibbs et al., 2018). However, it is important to note that economic abuse seldom happens in isolation and often coexists with or reinforces other types of IPV (including physical or sexual IPV) (Christy et al., 2022) and may have compounding or additive effects.

The bi-directional relationship between IPV and socioeconomic status has been acknowledged in the literature (Postmus et al., 2022); however, IPV experience is not synonymous with socioeconomic status (Haifley, 2021). While IPV does occur across sociodemographic groups, IPV is disproportionately experienced by those of lower socioeconomic status as poverty increases vulnerability to and compounds the impact of economic abuse, and economic abuse increases susceptibility to poverty (Bennett Cattaneo & Deloveh, 2008). The role of economically abusive experiences, specifically in the relationship between IPV and socioeconomic status, is underexplored but is posited to have far-reaching financial implications. Economic abuse may compound financial insecurity, which is already a gendered issue due to factors such as the gendered nature of care and childcare, undervaluing of women’s paid and unpaid work, and discrimination in the workforce (Postmus et al., 2018). A 2021 review noted that the impact of economic abuse on victims’ economic self-sufficiency during and after conclusion of an abusive relationship is grossly understudied (Haifley, 2021).

Interpersonal, cultural, and structural factors may contribute to women’s experiences of economic abuse by an intimate partner and to the limited capacity of women and children to recover from it. Interpersonal factors may include family relationships that value traditional gender roles, single parenting, disability, and cultural and/or linguistic circumstances that may limit women’s accessibility to information, awareness, agency, or support (Milne et al., 2018). Cultural factors include norms within a patriarchal society, where women experience gender inequity through lower employment rates, lower pay, social and cultural expectations to nurture children and other family members, and reduced or no access to individual finances (Milne et al., 2018). Structural factors may include patriarchal cultural structures, migration and childcare policies, poverty, and racism. These factors may lead to lower levels of education, community and economic participation, intergenerational poverty, and unstable housing (Milne et al., 2018).

Currently, there is a dearth of research describing the prevalence and impact of economic abuse as an IPV type in New Zealand (Jury et al., 2017). This study uses data from the population-based 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study | He Koiora Matapopore to explore economic abuse by intimate partners among New Zealand women. This study reports the prevalence of economic abuse for the whole sample and by sociodemographic characteristics, including whether economic abuse was perpetrated by a former or current partner. This study explores associations between economic abuse and a range of mental health and financial outcomes. The effects of any IPV (excluding economic abuse) and any economic abuse (whether in concert with other IPV types or exclusively as economic abuse) are explored as a method for investigating if the presence of economic abuse compounds the effects of other IPV types on women’s mental health and financial outcomes.

Methods

Methods for the 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study | He Koiora Matapopore (NZFVS) have been described elsewhere (Fanslow, Gulliver et al., 2021), but are presented briefly here. The 2019 NZFVS was a population-based retrospective cross-sectional survey based on the World Health Organization’s internationally standardized Multi-Country Study on Violence Against Women (WHO MCS). The WHO MCS’s 12-domain questionnaire was adapted to the NZ setting following consultation with NZ government and expert advisors. The survey was conducted from March 2017 to March 2019 across three regions (Waikato, Northland, and Auckland); these areas accounted for around 40% of the NZ population and covered a range of ethnicities and urbanicity. Ethics approval was granted by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (reference number 2015/018244).

Study Sample

Random sampling was conducted within primary sampling units (PSUs), in which every second and sixth house was selected from a random starting point. Non-residential and short-term residential properties, rest homes, and retirement villages were excluded. To keep survey content discrete for participant safety, PSUs were separately allocated by gender, and only one randomly selected person per household was eligible to participate. To maximize participant recruitment, interviewers made between one to seven visits to each selected household.

Participants had to be 16 years or older, be able to speak conversational English, have lived in the house for at least 1 month, and have slept in the house four or more nights a week. The 2019 NZFVS included data from 2,887 total participants. Complete interviews took place with 1,464 women, a response rate of 63.7% of eligible women contacted. For the present study, the dataset was restricted to ever-partnered women (n = 1,431), those who had ever been married, lived with a partner, or involved in a relationship with a partner without living together. Of these women, 96.7% identified as heterosexual.

Measures

Economic Abuse

Women’s exposure to economic abuse was assessed using questions pertaining to lifetime experience of five acts by any current or previous partner (Table 1). A binary measure was created for experiencing at least one act of economic abuse (any economic abuse), excluding those who reported experiencing only one economic abuse act once only and reported no other IPV types.

Table 1.

Prevalence of Individual Economic Abuse Acts and Any Economic Abuse Among Ever-Partnered Women in the 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study (n = 1,431).

n W% [95% CI]
Individual Economic Abuse Acts					Any Economic Abuse
Pressured into Unwanted Paid Work	Forced to Give up or Refuse a Job	Taken Earnings or Savings	Refused to Give Money for Household Expenses	Interfered with Childcare When you Needed to be at Work	At least One Act^a
27 2.1 [1.4, 3.1]	54 4.6 [3.4, 6.0]	81 6.5 [5.1, 8.3]	115 8.8 [7.3, 10.7]	76 6.8 [5.4, 8.5]	200 15.3 [13.2, 17.6]

Note. CI = confidence interval.

Excluding those who reported one economic abuse act once, and no other IPV.

Other Types of IPV

Women’s exposure to lifetime physical, sexual, and psychological IPV and controlling behaviors was assessed using questions pertaining to experience of violent behaviors inflicted by either a current or any previous partner (Supplementary Table 1). Dichotomous variables were created for any lifetime exposure to each of these four other IPV types (at least one act), except for psychological IPV, for which a two-measure threshold was used. For those who reported at least one IPV act per type, questions were followed up with “Who did this to you?.” Responses were dichotomized into current or former partner.

Sociodemographic Variables

Survey measures are provided in Supplementary Table 1.

Mental Health Outcomes

The mental health outcomes used in this study were (a) dichotomized responses from the Mental Health Continuum (Moderate mental health/languishing versus flourishing) and (b) having any diagnosed mental health condition (Supplemental Table 1). Additionally, women who reported any exposure to IPV were asked, “How much would you say that your partner’s behavior affected your mental health?”

Financial Outcomes

This study used dichotomized responses to (a) whether the respondent had experienced any food insecurity, (b) received any benefit in the past year, and (c) whether they could raise enough money to support themselves and their family for 4 weeks in the event of an emergency (Supplemental Table 1). Women who reported any exposure to IPV were also asked, “In what way, if any, has your partner’s behavior (the violence) disrupted your work or other income generating activities?.”

Statistical Analysis

All analyses were conducted in Stata 16.0 (StataCorp LLC). Survey weighting functions were used to account for sampling methods. Problems with missingness were minor; less than 1% for all types of IPV exposure except for economic abuse (13.2% missingness driven by “Don’t know,” “Refused to answer,” or “Not applicable” responses). Less than 1% of data were missing for all outcome variables. 16.2% (n = 34) of participants who reported any economic abuse did not report which partner committed the IPV acts. An a priori decision was made not to adjust for factors pertaining to socioeconomic status to avoid overadjustment for variables likely to be on the pathway between experiences of economic abuse, mental health, and financial hardship.

Results

Prevalence

Overall, 15% of ever-partnered women experienced any economic abuse (Table 1). The most prevalent act was “refused to give money for household expenses,” which was reported by 8.8% of the sample.

Age

Younger women (16–29 years) had the lowest prevalence (7.5%) of any economic abuse. For older women (30 years and older), prevalence of reporting at least one act of economic abuse was relatively consistent across age groups.

Ethnicity

Relative to other ethnic groups, Māori women had the highest prevalence (22.1%) of experiencing any economic abuse. Pasifika women had the lowest prevalence of 8.1%.

Education

Level of education did not have a relationship with economic abuse.

Deprivation

Compared with those in the least deprived areas, women who lived in the most deprived areas were more likely to report economic abuse (p < .05). Similarly, women who experienced food insecurity were 3.5 times more likely to report economic abuse (Adjusted Odds Ratio [AOR] 3.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) [2.39, 5.18]); 30% of those who experienced food insecurity reported experiencing any economic abuse (p = .0000). This could reflect a bi-directional relationship, with women who experience economic abuse more likely to live in circumstances of poverty, and economic abuse compounding the impact of poverty, as reflected in the greater likelihood of those who experienced economic abuse to be receiving a benefit (AOR 3.48, 95% CI [2.21, 5.47]) (Table 2).

Table 2.

Prevalence of Economic Abuse by Sociodemographic Characteristics and Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Experience for Women in the 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study (n = 1,431).

	Never^a	At Least One Act^a	Total^b	At least One Act	By Partner^d
Sociodemographic Characteristics	Never^a	At Least One Act^a	Total^b	At least One Act	Previous	Current
Sociodemographic Characteristics	n = 1,042	n = 200	n = 1,242	AOR^c [95% CI]	n = 136	n = 30
Age groups
16–29	117 (92.5)	11 (7.5)	128 (13.4)	—	9 (8.5)	* (5.4)
30–44	264 (83.0)	57 (17.0)	321 (24.8)		37 (26.1)	12 (40.5)
45–54	215 (83.4)	46 (16.6)	261 (23.5)		34 (27.5)	* (18.9)
55–64	176 (82.4)	41 (17.6)	217 (16.4)		28 (19.0)	* (5.4)
65+	269 (85.3)	44 (14.7)	313 (22.0)		27 (19.0)	10 (29.7)
χ² (p-value)	9.62 (0.0699)				7.15 (0.1854)
Ethnicity
European	741 (85.3)	128 (14.7)	869 (65.9)	—	88 (63.2)	13 (44.4)
Māori	125 (77.9)	38 (22.1)	163 (14.8)		29 (25.7)	6 (16.7)
Pasifika	46 (91.9)	9 (8.1)	55 (7.6)		7 (4.6)	* (5.6)
Asian	114 (85.6)	21 (14.4)	135 (11.8)		10 (6.6)	8 (33.3)
χ² (p-value)	10.41 (0.0364)				17.60 (0.0007)
Education
Primary/Secondary	420 (85.8)	75 (14.2)	495 (40.3)	Ref	58 (42.2)	7 (25.0)
Higher	618 (84.0)	124 (16.0)	742 (59.7)	0.84 [0.58, 1.22]	78 (57.8)	22 (75.0)
χ² (p-value)	0.7668 (0.4071)				3.12 (0.1284)
Area deprivation level
Least	310 (88.6)	42 (11.4)	352 (27.0)	Ref	23 (15.6)	10 (33.3)
Moderate	428 (85.9)	72 (14.1)	500 (38.5)	1.27 [0.79, 2.06]	45 (31.8)	12 (41.7)
Most	303 (80.6)	85 (19.4)	388 (34.6)	2.09 [1.32, 3.13]	68 (52.6)	7 (25.0)
χ² (p-value)	9.86 (0.0141)			2.09 [1.32, 3.13]	8.91 (0.0303)
Household income
>$100 K	355 (88.5)	51 (11.5)	406 (37.1)	Ref	27 (21.9)	8 (27.3)
≤$100 K	580 (82.1)	132 (17.9)	712 (62.9)	1.80 [1.20, 2.70]	99 (78.1)	18 (72.7)
χ² (p-value)	7.90 (0.0045)			1.80 [1.20, 2.70]	0.3835 (0.5600)
Occupation
Student	33 (87.7)	6 (12.3)	39 (4.4)	Ref.	5 (4.6)	0 (0.0)
Unemployed/housework	172 (78.3)	48 (21.7)	220 (18.2)	1.21 [0.39, 3.77]	33 (26.6)	10 (35.1)
Employed	587 (85.3)	113 (14.7)	700 (57.6)	0.81 [0.27, 2.41]	80 (55.8)	14 (48.7)
Retired	249 (88.2)	33 (11.8)	282 (19.9)	0.39 [0.11, 1.40]	18 (13.0)	6 (16.2)
χ² (p-value)	9.91 (0.0386)				2.54 (0.5330)
Receipt of any benefit
No	927 (87.4)	115 (12.6)	1,070 (84.5)	Ref	90 (62.3)	25 (86.5)
Yes	143 (70.1)	57 (29.9)	172 (15.5)	3.48 (2.21, 5.47)	46 (37.7)	5 (13.5)
χ² (p-value)	36.98 (0.0000)			3.48 (2.21, 5.47)	6.76 (0.0078)
Personal income
<50 K	662 (83.9)	131 (16.1)	793 (67.3)	Ref	94 (74.3)	20 (66.7)
≥50 K	318 (85.8)	59 (14.2)	377 (32.7)	1.13 [0.77, 1.65]	36 (25.7)	9 (33.3)
χ² (p-value)	0.7456 (0.4173)			1.13 [0.77, 1.65]	0.7321 (0.4489)
Food security status
Secure	876 (88.3)	126 (11.7)	1,002 (80.0)	Ref	84 (59.7)	18 (56.8)
Insecure	161 (70.1)	74 (29.9)	235 (20.0)	3.51 [2.39, 5.18]	52 (40.3)	12 (42.2)
χ² (p-value)	49.87 (0.0000)			3.51 [2.39, 5.18]	0.0944 (0.7868)
IPV Experience
Physical IPV
No	841 (94.8)	54 (5.2)	895 (72.7)	Ref
Yes	200 (57.7)	146 (42.3)	346 (27.3)	14.00 [9.54, 20.55]
χ² (p-value)	258.67 (0.0000)			14.00 [9.54, 20.55]
Sexual IPV
No	962 (90.0)	113 (10.0)	1,075 (87.7)	Ref
Yes	76 (46.5)	87 (53.5)	163 (12.3)	10.21 [6.84, 15.25]
χ² (p-value)	193.56 (0.0000)			10.21 [6.84, 15.25]
Psychological IPV
No	809 (97.2)	27 (2.8)	836 (68.1)	Ref
Yes	232 (58.1)	173 (41.9)	405 (31.9)	26.42 [16.68, 41.83]
χ² (p-value)	313.42 (0.0000)			26.42 [16.68, 41.83]
Controlling behavior
No	914 (93.8)	66 (6.2)	980 (79.0)	Ref
Yes	128 (50.5)	134 (49.5)	262 (21.0)	16.12 [8.91, 18.82]
χ² (p-value)	295.21 (0.0000)

Note. AORs = Adjusted Odds Ratios; CI = confidence interval; IPV = intimate partner violence.

Weighted row percentages.

Weighted column percentages.

AOR: Adjusted odds ratio adjusted for age and ethnicity.

Partner who perpetrated economic abuse acts missing for n = 34 of those who reported any economic abuse.

For the sake of privacy, cells with fewer than five respondents were suppressed and shown as *. Boldface indicates significant results at p < .05.

Occupation

Women who reported unemployment/housework as their main occupation had the greatest prevalence of economic abuse (21.7%). However, once adjusted for age and ethnicity, occupation was not significantly associated with increased risk for economic abuse. This could be reflective of a bi-directional relationship, with those who experienced economic abuse less likely to be employed or have access to an independent income (e.g., as a result of employment sabotage). Occupation and age groups may also have been highly correlated, which may have resulted in overadjustment.

Personal and Household Income Level

Women’s personal income level was not associated with economic abuse. Those in households with an annual income less than $100,000 were more likely to report experience of economic abuse (AOR 1.80, 95% CI [1.20, 2.70]) (Table 2).

Previous Versus Current Partner

The majority of women reported that economically abusive acts were perpetrated by a former partner. However, European and Asian women reported the greatest prevalence of economic abuse by a current partner. Those in the least or moderately deprived areas reported greater prevalence of experience by a current partner. Almost 40% of women who experienced economic abuse by a previous partner reported receipt of any benefit in the year prior to the survey, compared with 13.5% of those who experienced economic abuse from a current partner.

Other IPV Types

Reporting at least one act of economic abuse was significantly associated with experiencing all four other types of IPV. The greatest point estimate was observed for psychological IPV, for which women who reported economic abuse were over 25 times more likely to also report experiencing at least two psychologically abusive behaviors after adjustment for age and ethnicity (Table 2).

Mental Health Outcomes

Compared to those who did not experience any IPV, those who experienced any IPV (except economic) were 1.8 times (AOR 1.80, 95% CI [1.31, 2.48]) more likely to score as moderately mentally healthy/languishing on the Mental Health Continuum; while those who experienced any economic abuse were 2.6 times more likely to score moderately mentally healthy/languishing (AOR 2.59, 95% CI [1.77,3.79]). Similarly, those who experienced any IPV (except economic) were over twice as likely to have a diagnosed mental health condition (AOR 2.12, 95% CI [1.49, 3.01]), while those who experienced any economic abuse were almost five times as likely to (AOR 4.89, 95% CI [3.30, 7.27]) compared with those who experienced no IPV. Of those who reported any IPV, those who experienced any economic abuse were over four times as likely to say that their partner’s behavior (the IPV) affected their mental health “a lot” compared to those who did not report any acts of economic abuse (Table 3).

Table 3.

Associations Between Women’s Experience of any IPV (Except Economic) and any Economic Abuse with Mental Health and Financial Outcomes.

Outcomes	No IPV (n = 637)	Any IPV (but no economic) (n = 471)AOR [95% CI]	Economic + another IPV type, or just economic^a (n = 200)AOR [95% CI]
Mental health outcomes
Mental Health Continuum: Moderate/languishing (versus flourishing)	Ref.	1.80 [1.31–2.48]	2.59 [1.77–3.79]
Diagnosed mental health condition	Ref.	2.12 [1.49–3.01]	4.89 [3.30–7.27]
For those who experienced any IPV: Partner’s behavior affected mental health “a lot”	—	Ref.	4.20 [2.76–6.39]
Financial outcomes
Food insecurity	Ref.	1.78 [1.23–2.60]	4.72 [3.03–7.34]
Receipt of any benefit	Ref.	0.92 [0.57–1.50]	3.09 [1.77–5.34]
No access to 1 months’ worth of resources in an emergency	Ref.	1.01 [0.61–1.67]	3.08 [1.78–5.32]
For those who experienced any IPV: IPV disrupted work or other income-generating activities (versus work not disrupted/no work)^b	—	Ref.	3.54 [2.35–5.33]

Note. AOR = adjusted odds ratio adjusted for age and ethnicity, CI = confidence interval, IPV = intimate partner violence.

Boldface indicates significant results at p<0.05.

Participants were counted as “no IPV” if they only reported one act of economic abuse once and no other IPV types (n = 10).

Financial Outcomes

Compared to those who did not experience any IPV, those who experienced any IPV (except economic) were 1.8 times (AOR 1.78, 95% CI [1.23, 2.60]) more likely to report past year food insecurity; this point estimate increased to AOR 4.72 (95% CI [3.03, 7.34]) for those who experienced any economic abuse. Experience of any IPV (excluding economic) was not associated with significantly increased risk of receiving any benefit in the prior year, however those who experienced any economic abuse were over three times as likely to have received a benefit (AOR 3.09, 95% CI [1.77, 5.34]). Similarly, reporting any IPV (aside from economic) was not associated with significantly increased odds for not being able to raise enough money to support self in case of emergency, however those who experienced any economic abuse were over three times as likely to report not having access to this money (AOR 3.08, 95% CI [1.78, 5.32]) compared to those who did not report any IPV. Further, of those who reported any IPV, women who experienced any economic abuse were 3.5 times more likely to report that their partner’s IPV disrupted their work (AOR 3.54, 95% CI [2.35, 5.33], Table 3).

Financial Factors in Remaining Separated

Interestingly, for those who experienced IPV and left their partner, 16.2% of those who experienced any economic abuse reported that getting an independent job/income or their own housing helped them to remain separated, compared with 8% of those who experienced any IPV except economic abuse (Data not shown). This finding may indicate that economically abused women were less likely to be employed while with their abusive partner or that increased access to resources may be particularly important in enabling women who experienced economic abuse to remain separated.

Discussion

Findings from this study support the premise that economic abuse is one tactic used within the arsenal of IPV, as indicated by the substantial odds ratio estimates for associations between economic abuse and other IPV types. While IPV, in general, can have long-term occupational and economic implications (Krigel & Benjamin, 2021), our findings support independent associations found elsewhere between economic abuse and poor financial outcomes, whereby women who experienced economic abuse reported higher levels of financial stress even when controlling for physical and emotional IPV (Kutin et al., 2017). This reinforces calls for research to consider and measure economic abuse separately to further current understanding in the field, as economic abuse appears to contribute to both unique and compounding effects relative to other types of IPV. These findings also emphasize the need for clinical and support services to routinely assess for economically abusive tactics among the suite of commonly understood abusive behaviors so that appropriate mitigations can be put in place.

The findings from this study also support emerging international research that posits a strong association between experience of economic abuse and a range of poor mental health outcomes (Gibbs et al., 2018, 2020; Johnson et al., 2022; Voth Schrag et al., 2019). Our study extends the findings of previous research with samples of IPV survivors (Lin et al., 2022) by documenting how these effects are also evident in a representative population-based sample. Our findings also echo those from a multi-country study, which found that women who experienced economic abuse were 1.69 times more likely to report food insecurity (greater odds than those who experienced psychological, physical, and sexual IPV) (Postmus et al., 2022). Furthermore, other research has noted that economic abuse is associated with increased depressive symptoms, which are also associated with greater risk of experiencing food insecurity (Postmus et al., 2022).

Pathways Between Economic Abuse and Socioeconomic Outcomes

In our study, women who experienced economic abuse were predominantly of lower socioeconomic status. However, our findings suggest that economic abuse itself may heighten women’s economic vulnerability, as those with lower socioeconomic status may not only be more prone to experiencing economic abuse but experiencing economic abuse may make women more likely to be placed in lower socioeconomic positions. Among those whose previous partner had perpetrated economic abuse, a substantial portion of women were now on a benefit, even compared with women who were experiencing economic abuse from a current partner. The implication that economic abuse is a contributing factor to low socioeconomic status is supported by research that employs sequencing methods and which has found that financial strain may be an outcome of IPV, particularly economic abuse (Lin et al., 2022).

At the other end of the socioeconomic spectrum, women of higher socioeconomic status may be more likely to stay in economically abusive relationships due to financial pressures. This interpretation is supported by the finding that women in areas of low deprivation were more likely to experience economic abuse from a current rather than a former partner. An Australian report found that economic abuse often leads to poverty and that women can be faced with the decision of choosing between IPV and poverty, with the study also noting that economic abuse was a significant factor in women’s decisions to stay in or return to abusive relationships (Corrie et al., 2013). Economic abuse has been suggested as one of the most effective strategies to keep women from abusive relationships by limiting their independence (Christy et al., 2022). Further, economic abuse may limit women’s abilities to get legal aid or welfare benefits as it can appear that they have income or assets, even if they do not have access to them (Christy et al., 2022). Tactics of economic abuse can also allow abusers to exert control over their victims over long periods of time, including after separation, especially in countries where economic abuse is not legally identified or sanctioned (Krigel & Benjamin, 2021). The ongoing impact of economic abuse on victims’ wellbeing even after leaving a relationship has been emphasized by numerous studies, as many had no money or their former partner had accumulated large debts in their name (Christy et al., 2022; Corrie et al., 2013).

Poverty, as a result of economic abuse, is thought to heavily contribute to the adverse health outcomes associated with IPV experience (Singh, 2020). This relationship is complex and may be interactive. For example, in addition to the compounding effects of economic abuse experience on poor mental health reported here, other findings from this sample have documented associations between IPV (including economic abuse) and poor physical health outcomes (Mellar et al., 2023). Poor physical and mental health resulting from IPV can contribute to and exacerbate poor financial outcomes. Other studies have conducted mediational analyses and found that economic hardship partially mediates the relationship between economic abuse and mental health (Voth Schrag et al., 2019). For example, those who are not flourishing due to IPV may experience greater distraction and less productivity in the workplace and may be less likely to put themselves forward for career advancement (Reeves & O’Leary-Kelly, 2007). Job stability (time spent employed and job loss) has also been found to mediate the relationship between IPV and women’s economic wellbeing (Adams et al., 2012). Given that one study found that only 35% of study participants reported no long-term negative impacts of economic abuse (Sharp, 2008), the need to increase awareness of its detrimental effects becomes clear.

Limitations

The NZFVS did not collect data on past year economic abuse. Some of our results on perpetration of economic abuse by a current or former partner must be treated with caution due to low cell sizes; however, our findings provide an indication of a pathway following exposure to economic abuse that is consistent with findings from studies that have used longitudinal designs (Adams & Beeble, 2019; Lin et al., 2022). Lower prevalence of economic abuse by a current partner may be due to myriad reasons. Other research has indicated that women may not be aware that economic abuse behaviors are abusive and may only realize it as such upon leaving relationships (Kutin et al., 2017; Sharp-Jeffs, 2015). Further longitudinal research is needed to explore temporal pathways and the role of mediating and moderating factors in the relationship between economic abuse and financial hardship (Johnson et al., 2022). This is compounded by the fact that women in severe controlling and abusive relationships may be less likely to participate in surveys (World Health Organization, 2021).

Further research is also needed to explore economic abuse in LGBTQ+ relationships (Haifley, 2021), and for those with disabilities or activity limitations that may place women at greater risk of experiencing economic abuse (Cohen et al., 2005). Future research should also explore the nuances of the associations between economic abuse (and distinctive tactics used in diverse communities) and wellbeing outcomes for different ethnic and cultural groups (Singh, 2020). Our measures of economic abuse were adapted from the World Health Organization Multi-Country Study; however, exploration of the best tools for defining and measuring economic abuse is still warranted. For example, questions that consider economically abusive tactics used against unemployed and childless women should be further incorporated. The lack of field consensus on the measurement of economic abuse means there may be inconsistency between terms or questions used in the present study and other studies (Postmus et al., 2018). Further, the dichotomized personal and household income variables used in this study may have limited nuanced exploration of implications of economic abuse, that is, where one partner may take income from another without consent.

Our outcome definition of mental health conditions based on diagnosis is conservative. While this provides increased confidence that individuals met diagnostic criteria, this approach likely underestimates the true prevalence, as many individuals with mental health conditions do not seek health services or disclose their symptoms to healthcare professionals. Finally, the current study did not consider the presence or number of children in the household in relation to economic abuse, although other studies indicate that this may impact women’s ability to leave abusive relationships (Hashemi et al., 2021).

Implications

This research supports calls to increase awareness of economic abuse and educate IPV advocates and other helping services to identify and assess for economic abuse. This could be supported through use of risk matrices that gauge a range of potential abusive behaviors and tactics (Jury et al., 2017). Adequate assessment of physical, economic, and social risks for IPV victims/survivors could also be complemented with strategies that help women identify strengths, resources, and supports that can inform safety decisions; these should be well-integrated and aimed at being protective in the long-term (Hamby, 2013). Greater awareness of economically abusive behaviors and their implications could enhance the work of clinicians and IPV service providers. This is imperative, as public and service providers’ minimization or denial of economic abuse as a component of IPV contributes to victims’ difficulties in seeking and receiving adequate support and establishing financial independence (Christy et al., 2022). This study also highlights the need for services at the individual and community level to understand the contextual factors, including the direct impacts of economically abusive tactics and social factors, such as gendered pay gaps, that may contribute to IPV victims’ financial issues (Adams et al., 2008). Concrete suggestions for what these supports could look like include best-practice economic empowerment programs and services that are aimed at long-term financial wellbeing. These should be offered to all victims of IPV, especially for low-income women and those who experienced economically abusive acts (Hahn & Postmus, 2014). Long-term supports (including employment and housing) should be part of a suite of support packages offered to mitigate the destabilizing effects of economic abuse (Milne et al., 2018). Further, as economic abuse may exacerbate existing stressors for women in disadvantaged groups, including ethnic groups that experience racism and structural violence, these women may require additional support to leave abusive partners, remain separated, and gain economic independence and security.

At the policy and practice level, increasing efforts to address economic abuse as a distinct IPV type will require a multi-sectoral approach and engagement with agencies such as family courts, government social welfare services, banks, and police (Milne et al., 2018). For example, many Australian banks have implemented schemes for preventing and responding to financial abuse, in line with family violence research recommendations for industry guidelines (Australian Banking Association, 2021; Fitzpatrick, 2022). With expanded recognition of economic abuse and more legal recourse, intervention efforts should also be designed and implemented to deter perpetrators from using these tactics and stop them from inflicting ongoing economic abuse, even after relationship cessation.

Efforts to increase recognition of economic abuse tactics and to mitigate their use need to be implemented as part of a comprehensive approach to the suite of controlling behaviors that perpetrators may utilize. This is because there are suggestions that those who use violence can pivot in which abusive tactics they adopt. For example, there are indications that the prevalence of economic abuse in NZ increased from 4.5% in 2003 to 8.9% in 2019, a finding linked to the suggestion that abusers may have adopted economic abuse tactics at a time when there were increased efforts to raise public awareness about and increase sanctions against physical and sexual IPV (Fanslow, Hashemi et al., 2021; Fanslow, Malihi et al., 2021). Evidence of these shifts in abusive behavior bolsters the suggestion that economically abusive behaviors may be a manifestation of underlying issues of power and control (sometimes called coercive control) (Christy et al., 2022).

If this is the case, then directly addressing power and control as an underlying cause of IPV may be an essential and effective prevention and intervention strategy. This interpretation is supported by evidence that initiatives aimed at changing community-level norms related to power and power inequalities in relationships can reduce perpetration of physical IPV, increase community rejection of the norm that it is a man’s role to decide if his wife can work, and increase community acceptance and respect for joint decision-making by husbands and wives (Abramsky et al., 2016).

At the cultural and structural levels and irrespective of IPV experience, women generally experience greater financial strain that causes physical and mental health issues, which in turn can exacerbate economic gender inequities (Lin et al., 2022). Economic abuse may be especially gendered given broader gender inequality in financial assets and cultural norms concerning gendered roles of employment (Corrie et al., 2013; Haifley, 2021), which serve to compound the impacts of structural inequities that exist within society. Further, abusers may rely on these gendered stereotypes to justify or obfuscate the perpetration of economically abusive behaviors (Jury et al., 2017). The gendered power structure of society is evident in the relative economic status of men and women, and structural issues and cultural norms around this may provide the foundation for economic abuse.

Women’s experiences of IPV, particularly economic abuse, may contribute to the lower socioeconomic status of women, including the gender wage gap and its ethnic implications. Efforts to deal with socioeconomic inequities should, therefore, consider and address the role of IPV experience in these issues. The associations between economic abuse and financial insecurity found here highlight the importance of implementing wider forms of safety planning, including those that encompass plans for physical safety but which also address issues of economic independence and security and social support.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241235140 – Supplemental material for Economic Abuse by An Intimate Partner and Its Associations with Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241235140 for Economic Abuse by An Intimate Partner and Its Associations with Women’s Socioeconomic Status and Mental Health by Brooklyn M. Mellar, Janet Lynn Fanslow, Pauline J. Gulliver and Tracey K. D. McIntosh in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Acknowledgments and credits

The authors gratefully acknowledge the participants, interviewers, the study project team led by Patricia Meagher-Lundberg, and data curation by Dr Ladan Hashemi. Representatives from the Ministry of Justice, Accident Compensation Corporation, New Zealand Police, and Ministry of Education, who were part of the Governance Group for Family and Sexual Violence at the inception of the study, are also acknowledged. The study funder had no involvement in the study design; collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; writing of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. This study is based on the WHO Violence Against Women Instrument as developed for use in the WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence and has been adapted from the version used in Asia and the Pacific by kNOwVAWdata, version 12.03. It adheres to the WHO ethical guidelines for the conduct of violence against women research.

Author contributions

BMM conducted the data analysis and coordinated the writing of the article. JLF and PG supervised the data analysis and interpretation. JLF and PG contributed to originating the research questions. JLF, PG, and TM were coinvestigators on the grant that supported the data collection. All authors participated in the writing of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared a potential conflict of interest (e.g., a financial relationship with the commercial organizations or products discussed in this article) as follows: Professor Fanslow reported receiving grants from the New Zealand Ministry of Justice outside the submitted work. Dr Gulliver reported being employed at the Health Quality & Safety Commission and being a senior specialist for the Family Violence Death Review Committee. In addition to her role at the University of Auckland, Professor McIntosh is Chief Science Advisor for the Ministry of Social Development.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Funding was received from the New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, contract number CONT-42799-HASTR-UOA.

ORCID iDs

Brooklyn M. Mellar

Janet Lynn Fanslow

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Brooklyn Mellar, MPH, is a research associate in the School of Population Health at the University of Auckland. Her work focuses on social determinants of health, particularly intimate partner violence and adverse childhood experiences. She is interested in using quantitative methods to identify moderating factors between adversity and poor health to inform population-level prevention and intervention efforts.

Janet Fanslow, PhD, MNZM, is a Professor at the School of Population Health, University of Auckland, and Chief Advisor of the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse. She has been engaged in violence prevention research since 1989 and has led two population-based studies on the prevalence and health consequences of violence.

Pauline Gulliver, PhD, is an Honorary Senior Research Fellow at the School of Population Health, University of Auckland. Pauline has also been involved with research measuring the long-term outcomes of assault in pregnancy, exploring risk factors for suicidal ideation in women who have experienced violence, and understanding dynamics associated with family violence deaths.

Tracey McIntosh, PhD, MNZM, is Ngāi Tūhoe and is Professor of Indigenous Studies and Co-Head of Te Wānanga o Waipapa (School of Māori Studies and Pacific Studies) at the University of Auckland. Her recent research focused on incarceration (particularly of Māori and Indigenous peoples) and issues pertaining to poverty, inequality and social justice.

References

Abramsky

Devries

K. M.

Michau

Nakuti

Musuya

Kiss

Kyegombe

Watts

(2016). Ecological pathways to prevention: How does the SASA! community mobilisation model work to prevent physical intimate partner violence against women? BMC Public Health, 16(340), 339–339. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3018-9

Adams

A. E.

Beeble

M. L.

(2019). Intimate partner violence and psychological well-being: examining the effect of economic abuse on women’s quality of life. Psychology of Violence, 9(5), 517–525. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000174

Adams

A. E.

Sullivan

C. M.

Bybee

Greeson

M. R.

(2008). Development of the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 14(5), 563–588. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801208315529

Adams

A. E.

Tolman

R. M.

Bybee

Sullivan

C. M.

Kennedy

A. C.

(2012). The impact of intimate partner violence on low-income women’s economic well-being: The mediating role of job stability. Violence Against Women, 18(12), 1345–1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801212474294

Australian Banking Association. (2021). Financial abuse and family and domestic violence (FDV) guidelines. Retrieved February 2, from https://www.ausbanking.org.au/financial-abuse-and-family-and-domestic-violence-policies/

Bennett Cattaneo

Deloveh

H. L. M

. (2008). The role of socioeconomic status in helpseeking from hotlines, shelters, and police among a national sample of women experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 78(4), 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014558

Christy

Welter

Dundon

Valandra, & Bruce

(2022). Economic abuse: A subtle but common form of power and control. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(1–2), NP473–NP499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520916264

Cohen

M. M.

Forte

Du Mont

Hyman

Romans

(2005). Intimate partner violence among Canadian women with activity limitations. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59(10), 834–839. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.022467

Corrie

McGuire

Deakin

Fraser

Hucks

Jackson

Landvogt

(2013). Economic abuse: Searching for solutions. https://goodshep.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/economic-abuse_final-report.pdf

10.

Fanslow

Gulliver

Hashemi

Malihi

McIntosh

(2021). Methods for the 2019 New Zealand Family Violence Study- a study on the association between violence exposure, health and well-being. Kōtuitui: New Zealand Journal of Social Sciences Online, 16(1), 196–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/1177083X.2020.1862252

11.

Fanslow

Hashemi

Malihi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2021). Change in prevalence rates of physical and sexual intimate partner violence against women: Data from two cross-sectional studies in New Zealand, 2003 and 2019. BMJ Open, 11(3), e044907. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044907

12.

Fanslow

Malihi

Hashemi

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2021). Change in prevalence of psychological and economic abuse, and controlling behaviours against women by an intimate partner in two cross-sectional studies in New Zealand, 2003 and 2019. BMJ Open, 11(3), e044910. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044910

13.

Fitzpatrick

(2022). Designed to disrupt: Reimagining banking products to improve financial safety [Discussion paper]. https://apo.org.au/node/320806

14.

Gibbs

Dunkle

Jewkes

(2018). Emotional and economic intimate partner violence as key drivers of depression and suicidal ideation: A cross-sectional study among young women in informal settlements in South Africa. PLoS One, 13, e0194885. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194885

15.

Gibbs

Dunkle

Jewkes

(2020). The prevalence, patterning and associations with depressive symptoms and self-rated health of emotional and economic intimate partner violence: A three-country population based study. Journal of Global Health, 10(1), 010415. https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.010415

16.

Hahn

S. A.

Postmus

J. L.

(2014). Economic empowerment of impoverished IPV survivors: A review of best practice literature and implications for policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 15(2), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838013511541

17.

Haifley

C. K.

(2021). Economic abuse: A literature review of a salient yet overlooked form of intimate partner violence. Theory in Action, 14(2), 82–91. https://doi.org/10.3798/tia.1937-0237.2114

18.

Hamby

(2013). Battered women’s protective strategies: Stronger than you know. Oxford University Press.

19.

Hashemi

Fanslow

J. L.

Gulliver

McIntosh

(2021). Relational mobility and other contributors to decline in intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(21–22), NP21119–NP21142. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211055193

20.

Howard

Skipp

(2015). UneqUal, trapped & controlled: Women’s experience of financial abuse and universal credit. Trades Union Congress. https://www.tuc.org.uk/sites/default/files/UnequalTrappedControlled.pdf

21.

Johnson

Chen

Stylianou

Arnold

(2022). Examining the impact of economic abuse on survivors of intimate partner violence: A scoping review. BMC Public Health, 22(1), 1014. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13297-4

22.

Jury

Thorburn

Weatherall

(2017). “What’s his is his and what’s mine is his”: Financial power and the economic abuse of women in Aotearoa. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 29(2), 69–82. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss2id312

23.

Krigel

Benjamin

(2021). From physical violence to intensified economic abuse: Transitions between the types of IPV over survivors’ life courses. Violence Against Women, 27(9), 1211–1231. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220940397

24.

Kutin

Russell

Reid

(2017). Economic abuse between intimate partners in Australia: Prevalence, health status, disability and financial stress. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 41(3), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12651

25.

Lin

H.-F.

Postmus

J. L.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2022). IPV experiences and financial strain over time: Insights from the blinder-oaxaca decomposition analysis. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 44(2), 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-022-09847-y

26.

Marriott

Lai

J. C.

(2023). Tax evasion and benefit fraud: a study of the use of techniques of neutralization. Deviant Behavior, 44(8), 1264–1285. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2023.2179442

27.

Mellar

Hashemi

Selak

Gulliver

McIntosh

Fanslow

(2023). Association between women’s exposure to intimate partner violence and self-reported health outcomes in New Zealand. JAMA Network Open, 6(3), e231311. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.1311

28.

Milne

Maury

Gulliver

Eccleton

(2018). Economic abuse in New Zealand: Towards an understanding and response. https://goodshepherd.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Economic-Abuse-in-New-Zealand-GSNZ-2018.pdf

29.

New Zealand Family Violence Death Review Committee. (2022). Seventh report | Pūrongo tuawhitu: A duty to care | Me manaaki te tangata. https://www.hqsc.govt.nz/assets/Our-work/Mortality-review-committee/FVDRC/Publications-resources/Seventh-report-transcripts/FVDRC-seventh-report-web.pdf

30.

Postmus

J. L.

Hoge

G. L.

Breckenridge

Sharp-Jeffs

Chung

(2018). Economic abuse as an invisible form of domestic violence: A multicountry review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(2), 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018764160

31.

Postmus

J. L.

Nikolova

Lin

H.-F.

Johnson

(2022). Women’s economic abuse experiences: Results from the UN multi-country study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(15–16), NP13115–NP13142. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211003168

32.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S.-B.

McMahon

Murshid

N. S.

Kim

M. S.

(2012). Understanding economic abuse in the lives of survivors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(3), 411–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260511421669

33.

Postmus

J. L.

Plummer

S.-B.

Stylianou

A. M.

(2016). Measuring economic abuse in the lives of survivors: Revising the scale of economic abuse. Violence Against Women, 22(6), 692–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215610012

34.

Reeves

O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

(2007). The effects and costs of intimate partner violence for work organizations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(3), 327–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260506295382

35.

Sharp-Jeffs

(2015). Money matters: Research into the extent and nature of financial abuse within intimate relationships in the UK. https://repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1481/

36.

Sharp

(2008). “What’s yours is mine”: The different forms of economic abuse its impact on women and children experiencing domestic violence. https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Whats-yours-is-mine-Full-Report.pdf

37.

Singh

(2020). Economic abuse and family violence across cultures: Gendering money and assets through coercive control. In McMahon

McGorrery

(Eds.), Criminalising coercive control: Family violence and the criminal Law (pp. 51–72). Springer Singapore.

38.

Stark

(2023). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.

39.

Stylianou

A. M.

Postmus

J. L.

McMahon

(2013). Measuring abusive behaviors: Is economic abuse a unique form of abuse? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28(16), 3186–3204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260513496904

40.

Voth Schrag

R. J.

Robinson

S. R.

Ravi

. (2019). Understanding pathways within intimate partner violence: Economic abuse, economic hardship, and mental health. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 28(2), 222–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2018.1546247

41.

World Health Organization. (2021). Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women. Retrieved February 1, 2022, from https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/341337

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB