Intimate Partner Violence and Abuse

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is behaviour by a current or former partner that causes physical, sexual, or psychological harm, including controlling and coercive behaviour. It is a common form of interpersonal trauma with wide-ranging effects on mental and physical health, and a recurrent reason that people present to health services, making its recognition relevant across nursing settings.

Definition

Intimate partner violence and abuse is any pattern of physical, sexual, or psychological harm — including coercive control — perpetrated by a current or former intimate partner.

Scope

The entry covers the definition and forms of IPV, its prevalence and health consequences, and what is known about prevention. It treats IPV as a public-health and trauma topic relevant to recognition and trauma-informed response; it is a reference and educational overview and does not provide safety-planning, forensic, or individualised intervention instructions, which require specialist services.

Core questions

• What behaviours are included under intimate partner violence and abuse?
• How common is IPV across populations?
• What are its consequences for mental and physical health?
• What approaches have evidence for preventing or reducing IPV?

Key concepts

• Physical, sexual, and psychological abuse
• Coercive control
• Gendered patterns of victimisation
• Health consequences (mental and physical)
• Inquiry and recognition in health settings
• Prevention of violence against women and girls

Mechanisms

IPV harms health through direct injury and through chronic stress arising from fear, control, and ongoing threat, which is associated with depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, substance use, and a range of physical conditions. Campbell (2002) describes both the acute and the cumulative health consequences of partner violence. Because abuse is often hidden and stigmatised, its effects may present indirectly in health settings, which is why recognition and a trauma-informed, non-judgemental response matter. Ellsberg and colleagues (2015) review the evidence on what interventions can reduce violence against women and girls at community and population levels.

Clinical relevance

People affected by IPV frequently use health services, often for problems not obviously connected to abuse, so awareness supports recognition and a safe, supportive response. This entry describes the phenomenon and the evidence around it; it does not provide protocols for risk assessment, safety planning, or disclosure response, which must follow specialist training, local policy, and statutory safeguarding procedures.

Epidemiology

The WHO multi-country study found that a substantial proportion of ever-partnered women report lifetime physical or sexual violence by a partner, with wide variation between settings (Garcia-Moreno et al., 2006). IPV affects people of all genders but is most prevalent and severe against women, and it is recognised globally as a major public-health and human-rights concern.

History

Partner violence moved from being treated as a private matter to a recognised public-health and human-rights issue over the late twentieth century, supported by advocacy and by epidemiological work. The WHO multi-country study (2006) provided comparable international prevalence data, and subsequent reviews such as Ellsberg et al. (2015) shifted attention toward evaluating what can actually prevent violence.

Debates

Should health services routinely screen all patients for IPV?

Universal inquiry could improve recognition, but evidence on whether routine screening improves outcomes is mixed, and concerns about safety, false reassurance, and adequate response pathways mean recommendations vary; many favour case-finding and trained inquiry over blanket screening.

Key figures

• Jacquelyn Campbell
• Claudia Garcia-Moreno
• Mary Ellsberg

Seminal works

• garcia-moreno-2006
• campbell-2002
• ellsberg-2015

Frequently asked questions

Does intimate partner violence only mean physical violence?

No. IPV includes physical and sexual violence as well as psychological abuse and coercive control — patterns of intimidation, isolation, and control by a current or former partner that can be harmful even without physical injury.

Should everyone be screened for IPV in healthcare?

This is debated. Some settings advocate routine inquiry to improve recognition, while evidence on whether universal screening improves outcomes is mixed; recommendations differ and emphasise safety, training, and the availability of a supportive response.