APMHC

Introduction

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) involves behaviours that cause physical, psychological, or sexual harm to a partner in an intimate relationship. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines IPV as any behaviour by a current or former partner or spouse that results in physical, sexual, or psychological harm. This includes acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviours [1]. IPV also refers to behaviours that are intended to exert power and control over an intimate partner, such as threats, intimidation, and isolation [2].

Nevertheless, IPV is not limited to physical violence but also includes emotional manipulation and economic abuse, which can have equally damaging effects on the victims’ well-being [3-5]. IPV is considered not just a criminal justice issue but also a significant public health concern due to its profound impact on mental and physical health outcomes [6,7]. Evidence in the literature suggests that IPV is a pervasive issue globally, with sociocultural and economic dimensions that influence its occurrence and the response to it [1,8,9].

Research has also shown that IPV manifests in various forms, each with distinct characteristics and impacts. For example, Paintsil et al. [10] observed that physical violence involves the use of force against a partner, which might result in injury, harm, or even death. It includes actions such as hitting, slapping, choking, or using weapons [11]. Closely associated is sexual violence, which encompasses any non-consensual sexual act or behaviour, imposed by an intimate partner [1,12]. This includes forced intercourse, unwanted sexual touching, and coercion into sexual activities [1].  A report by the UN Women [8] noted that globally, more than one in four women, specifically, 27% of women aged 15 to 49 years who have ever been in an intimate relationship, report experiencing physical and/or sexual violence at the hands of a current or former partner. This statistic highlights the widespread nature of IPV and indicates a critical public health challenge and human rights concern [13,14]. This statistic reflects only reported cases, suggesting that the actual prevalence may be even higher due to underreporting caused by stigma, fear, or lack of access to support services [8].

Other forms of IPV include psychological or emotional abuse, involving behaviours that harm a partner’s self-worth or emotional well-being [15,16]. This includes verbal insults, threats, humiliation, and controlling behaviours [8]. A meta-analytic review found strong associations between emotional IPV and other forms of violence, such as stalking and physical IPV, demonstrating the interconnectedness of abuse types [17]. Conversely, economic forms of abuse entail controlling a partner’s access to financial resources, hindering their ability to support themselves, thereby forcing dependence [18]. A study among young Nigerian women revealed that economic vulnerabilities, including limited education and employment opportunities, exacerbated the risks of experiencing economic abuse [19]. According to Palmer et al. [17], this form of abuse often includes controlling household finances and denying funds for basic needs. 

Nevertheless, an emerging form of IPV is technology-facilitated abuse. Technological abuse involves using digital tools to monitor, harass, or control a partner [20]. In the UK, a study by Baily et al., [21] refers to technology-based form of IPV as coercive control. Similarly, a study by Adeleke, et al. [22] in Nigeria, observed that behaviours that aim to deny, limit, or monitor a partners’ access to internet can be referred to as technology-based IPV.  In Taiwan, a qualitative study found that perpetrators used communication technologies to stalk, harass, and intimidate their partners, including distributing defamatory messages via social media and other platforms [20]. This form of abuse demonstrates the evolving nature of IPV in the digital age.

Most of these forms of IPV have severe effects that threaten the life and survival of the victim. For instance, empirical findings revealed that survivors of IPV are at a significantly increased risk of developing mental health disorders [13]. A systematic review and meta-analysis found that exposure to IPV is strongly associated with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and suicidal ideation [23]. Notably, women exposed to any form of IPV had a fivefold increased risk of suicidal thoughts [16]. These mental health challenges are compounded by several factors, including hopelessness, isolation, and sleep disturbances, which are common among IPV survivors [24]. In the UK, a report documented 93-suspected abuse-related suicides within a year and emphasized the lethal potential of IPV-related psychological distress [25].

Beyond psychological effects, IPV has tangible physical health repercussions. A study in Australia revealed that two women who suffered prolonged domestic abuse were diagnosed post-mortem with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a neurodegenerative disease typically associated with repeated head injuries in contact sports [26].These cases exposed the severe neurological damage that can result from sustained physical abuse. In addition, IPV adversely affects reproductive health. Research indicates that women experiencing IPV are at heightened risk for sexually transmitted infections, infertility, miscarriages, and other reproductive complications [24]. The risk escalates with increased exposure to IPV, suggesting a dose-dependent relationship [13].

Research consistently shows that while both men and women can experience IPV, women are disproportionately affected in terms of frequency, severity, and consequences [27-30]. A global study by the World Health Organization [14] found that one in three women worldwide has experienced physical or sexual violence, primarily by an intimate partner. This finding reiterates the gendered nature of IPV. In contrast, while men also report IPV, it is often less severe and less likely to result in injury or long-term psychological harm. Supporting this position, a study by Gubi and Wandera [30] found that although many men in Uganda reported experiencing IPV, women were significantly more likely to suffer repeated assaults, fear for their lives, and require medical attention. However, research findings also suggest that male silence about their IPV experiences is a significant factor contributing to the underreporting of IPV [28,29].

The literature also shows that the prevalence of IPV varies significantly between developed and developing countries. According to Frost et al. [19] this difference is influenced by several factors, including socioeconomic conditions, cultural norms, and the effectiveness of legal frameworks. IPV remains a pressing concern in developed countries despite advanced legal systems and support services [31,32]. For instance, in the United Kingdom, violence against women and girls has reached epidemic proportions, with over one million cases recorded between 2022 and 2023, accounting for nearly 20% of all recorded crimes [33]. This statistic could be a concern as it pinpoints the persistent nature of IPV, even in developed contexts.

Conversely, in developing countries, the prevalence of IPV is often higher, exacerbated by factors such as poverty, limited access to education, and entrenched patriarchal norms [19]. A study in Kenya revealed that 41.1% of women aged 15 to 49 had experienced some form of IPV in their lifetime, and the contributing factors included low education levels, economic hardship, and partner alcohol use [28]. Similarly, in East Africa, the overall prevalence of IPV stood at 32.66%, with significant variations across countries [34,35]. The prevalence of IPV in sub-Saharan Africa remains high, with recent studies indicating that approximately 33% to 44% of women in the region have experienced some form of IPV in their lifetime [1,36,37]. A meta-analysis by Andualem et al. [38] reported a pooled prevalence of 37.2% and found physical violence as the most common type, followed by emotional and sexual abuse. The study by Frost et al. [19] earlier observed that socioeconomic factors, harmful gender norms, low education levels, and limited access to justice contribute to the high rates of IPV in the region.

Despite the high prevalence of IPV in African countries such as Nigeria, several factors significantly hinder victims from reporting their experiences [9,39]. One of the most pervasive barriers identified is deep-rooted cultural and patriarchal norms, which often overlook violence within intimate relationships and discourage public disclosure [40-42]. In many communities, IPV is seen as a private family matter rather than a criminal offense, leading victims to remain silent to avoid shame, stigma, or retaliation. Studies have shown that women who report IPV are frequently blamed for provoking the abuse or are pressured by family and religious institutions to endure for the sake of preserving the family name [19,40,42]. This cultural silencing is reinforced by a lack of awareness about legal rights and the services available to IPV survivors [41].

In addition, systemic and institutional challenges further discourage reporting. According to Bolarinwa et al. [7] many survivors in Nigeria encounter inadequate or insensitive responses from law enforcement, healthcare providers, and judicial institutions. Furthermore, Oluwole et al. [5] observed that corruption, lack of confidentiality, and the fear of not being taken seriously contribute to a widespread mistrust of formal reporting mechanisms. Moreover, limited access to support services such as shelters, legal aid, and counselling, particularly in rural areas, leaves many victims with no safe alternatives [7,43]. Economic dependence on the abuser also plays a critical role, as many women fear losing financial support for themselves and their children [19,38]. These factors create an environment where IPV is both underreported and not properly addressed, despite its serious and often lifethreatening consequences.

While previous studies have extensively discussed the high prevalence of IPV in Nigeria, the reporting behaviours and policy implications have been underreported; a possible reason why the high prevalence has persisted. Therefore, more research is needed to understand the context and specific scenarios associated with IPV reporting behaviours and the policy implications in Nigeria. Empirical information will enhance policy review and strategic implementation, which can significantly reduce the high rate of IPV in the country. Though majorities of previous studies have made various recommendations for reducing the high prevalence of IPV, understanding IPV reporting behaviours will enhance the effectiveness of strategy implementation.

The objective of the study was to analyse the key factors influencing the high prevalence, reporting behaviours, and barriers to reporting IPV in Nigeria, as well as compare them with challenges faced in a developed country. Thus, three major research questions were raised:

• What are the key factors influencing the high prevalence of IPV in Nigeria?
• What are the reporting behaviours and major barriers to reporting IPV in Nigeria? and
• How do these behaviours and barriers to reporting IPV differ from those in developed countries?

Materials and Methods

The study utilized a case study method that focused on Nigeria and the United Kingdom. These countries were purposively selected to facilitate a comparative discussion of IPV issues between a developing and a developed country. Secondary data were drawn from the databases of the WHO, UN Women, the Nigeria National Demographic and Health Survey, the Nigeria Bureau of Statistics, and the UK Office for National Statistics. The information gathered spanned 2019 to 2024. These sources provided credible data for the study, focusing on Nigeria (i.e., a developing country) and the United Kingdom (i.e., a developed country). Content analysis and document review methods were used to analyse the information gathered from these sources. Descriptive and comparative analyses were conducted to discuss the prevalence, factors, and barriers to IPV reporting across the selected socioeconomic contexts.

Results

Prevalence of IPV

Data from the WHO 2024 indicates that IPV remains a pervasive global issue, with significant variations across regions. The statistics show that approximately 30% of women worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner in their lifetime. The prevalence was higher in low and middleincome countries (LMIC), with sub-Saharan Africa reporting a rate of 33% among women aged between 15 and 49 years. In contrast, high-income countries in Europe and North America report lower prevalence rates, around 22% and 25% respectively.

In Nigeria, the data presents a complex picture regarding IPV prevalence. The National Demographic and Health Survey [44] estimated that 19% of women have experienced emotional IPV, 14% physical IPV, and 5% sexual IPV from their current husband or partner. However, the National Bureau of Statistics [45] report reveals higher prevalence rates, with psychological/emotional violence ranging from 31% to 61%, sexual violence from 20% to 31%, and physical violence from 7% to 31%. Meanwhile, a regional-based study reported that the Southeast had a prevalence of 78.8%, indicating significant disparities [46, 47]. 

Comparatively, in the United Kingdom, data from the Office for National Statistics [33] indicates that in the year ending March 2023, an estimated 2.4 million adults aged 16 to 74 years experienced domestic abuse, with women accounting for approximately twothirds of the victims. This translates to about 1.6 million female victims (emotional IPV 5.8%, physical IPV 16.8%, and sexual IPV, 4.3%), indicating the highly gendered nature of IPV

Factors Contributing to the Prevalence of IPV 

In Nigeria, reports by the NDHS and the NBS identified cultural norms, low levels of education, poverty, alcohol/substance use, weak legal frameworks, childhood exposure to violence, religious and social pressure, and limited access to support services as key factors contributing to the high prevalence of IPV (Table 1). Comparatively, according to the 2024 report from the UK Office for National Statistics, key factors contributing to IPV were a history of abuse, socioeconomic disadvantage, substance misuse, and mental health issues. The contributing factors of IPV in Nigeria and the UK are summarized in Table 1.

Source: NBS, 2022; UK-ONS, 2024

Table 1: Differences in Factors Contributing to the Prevalence of IPV in Nigeria and the UK.

Data from the WHO 2024 revealed that nearly 1 in 3 women globally have experienced physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner, non-partner sexual violence, or both. In sub-Saharan Africa, where the prevalence of IPV is notably high, with 22.3% of women aged 15 and 49 years reporting physical and/or sexual violence by an intimate partner, the response has been low due to several factors, including systemic and sociocultural factors. In Nigeria, data from the UN Women [8] revealed that only 13.8% of women victims of IPV in the last 12 months reported it to a third party. Comparatively, data from the UK Office of National Statistics show that approximately 80.4% of IPV victims reported telling someone about the abuse, with 13.3% reporting it to the police.  However, the WHO 2024 report noted that the reporting rates are low, as analysis found that only 1 in 10 women who experienced IPV sought help from formal services. Generally, despite the high prevalence, reporting rates remain low, especially in developing countries such as Nigeria. Differences in IPV reporting behaviours in Nigeria and the UK are presented in Table 2.

Source: NBS, 2022; UK-ONS, 2024.

Table 2: Differences in IPV Reporting Behaviours between Nigeria and the United Kingdom.