Conflict and Health (Jan 2024)

Drivers of men’s use of intimate partner violence in conflict-affected settings: learnings from the Democratic Republic of Congo

  • Christine Bourey,
  • Rashelle J. Musci,
  • Judith K. Bass,
  • Nancy Glass,
  • Amani Matabaro,
  • Jocelyn T. D. Kelly

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-023-00562-5
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 18, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is prevalent in conflict-affected settings. Yet, there is limited knowledge about the risk factors that influence men’s use of IPVAW in conflict-affected settings. This paper adopts a transdisciplinary perspective to understand how experiences hypothesized to increase men’s use of IPVAW relate to each other and to men’s use of IPVAW. The findings may help researchers and interventionists to better select and target interventions for IPVAW in conflict-affected settings. Methods We used baseline data from the Tushinde Ujeuri project in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Men with at least partial data for the variables of interest were included in the analysis (n = 2080). We estimated a structural equation model that explored how five constructs – interpersonal violence, mental health, socioeconomic adversity, gender inequitable attitudes, and conflict violence – influenced men’s self-reported past-year use of physical and/or sexual IPVAW. Results The model had acceptable fit (χ2 = 1576.574, p = 0.000; RMSEA = 0.041; CLI = 0.882; SRMR = 0.055). There was a statistically significant path from interpersonal violence to IPVAW (β = 0.875; OR = 2.40). Interpersonal violence also was linked to gender inequitable attitudes (β = 0.364), which were linked to increased use of IPVAW (β = 0.180; OR = 1.20). Moreover, interpersonal violence was linked to trauma symptoms (β = 0.331), which were linked to increased use of IPVAW (β = 0.238; OR = 1.27). Use of IPVAW decreased as conflict exposures increased (β=-0.036; OR = 0.96), and there was no path from socioeconomic adversity to IPVAW. Conclusions Our findings suggest interpersonal violence exposures, trauma symptoms, and gender inequitable attitudes are all risk factors for the use of IPVAW in a conflict-affected setting. While continuing to focus on gender inequitable attitudes and norms, interventionists should also consider addressing men’s experiences of victimization and mental wellbeing. Doing so can help to improve trauma symptoms and may hold promise to reduce IPVAW in conflict-affected settings.

Keywords