Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 BMC Women’s Health https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-023-02248-9 RESEARCH Open Access Exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea Richard Gyan Aboagye1*, Bernard Yeboah‑Asiamah Asare2,3, Collins Adu4,5, Abdul Cadri6,7, Abdul‑Aziz Seidu4,8, Bright Opoku Ahinkorah9 and Sanni Yaya10,11 Abstract Background Previous studies have demonstrated that exposure to interparental violence is associated with intimate partner violence justification in a variety of contexts. In this study, we examined the association between exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate partner violence among women in Papua New Guinea. Methods We used data from the 2016–18 Papua New Guinea Demographic and Health Survey. We included 2839 women of reproductive age (15–49 years) in a sexual union (married and cohabiting) in the study. We used a multi‑ variable binary multilevel regression analysis to examine the association between interparental violence and justifica‑ tion of intimate partner violence. We presented the results of the regression analysis using crude odds ratio (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aORs), with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results Women exposed to interparental violence were 1.26 (95%CI = 1.05, 1.53) times more likely to justify intimate partner violence than those who were not exposed. Women who resided in the Highlands (aOR = 2.50, 95%CI = 1.78, 3.51), Momase (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.40, 2.75), and Islands (aOR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.01, 1.99) were more likely to justify intimate partner violence compared to those in the Southern region. Women who were exposed to one (aOR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.06, 1.82) mass media were more likely to justify intimate partner violence compared to those who had no exposure to mass media. On the other hand, women aged 25–34 years (aOR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.48, 0.91) and 35–49 years (aOR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.44, 0.97) were less likely to justify intimate partner violence compared to those aged 15–24 years. Conclusions Our study has shown that exposure to interparental violence is a predictor of intimate partner vio‑ lence justification. This study suggests the need for conscious and continuous efforts to identify and assist women who have been exposed to interparental violence to help prevent its transition to later life. Policies and interventions should be developed and implemented to curtail children’s exposure to domestic violence in their households. Also, laws and policies need to condemn any violence and demystify community justification and acceptance of intimate partner violence, taking into consideration the significant sociodemographic characteristics of the women high‑ lighted in the study. Keywords Interparental violence, Intimate partner violence, Papua New Guinea, Global Health *Correspondence: Richard Gyan Aboagye raboagye18@sph.uhas.edu.gh Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/p ubli cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 2 of 10 Introduction and stifling silence regarding how IPV affects women. Intimate partner violence (IPV), encompasses a variety The current climate of emotional, physical, and sexual of sexual, emotional, and physical coercive behaviours violence in PNG violate women’s basic human rights, committed in the context of an intimate relationship [1]. causes untold pain and misery, impedes women’s par- It has emerged as a major public health concern world- ticipation in the country’s development, reinforces other wide. IPV has been widely documented against both men forms of violence in society, and psychologically harms and women around the world [2], with both sexes being children who witness such violence [20]. either perpetrators or victims. Nevertheless, studies have Understanding the magnitude and exposure of inter- reported that men are more likely to be the perpetrators parental violence linked with IPV justification is a criti- of severe kinds of IPV [3–5]. Sabri et  al. [6] posits that cal prerequisite for designing successful interventions to IPV can increase the risk of sexually transmitted infec- address IPV against women in society. In view of this, we tions and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)  by examined the association between exposure to interpa- limiting a victim’s ability to negotiate safer sex because rental violence and IPV justification among women in of fear of further violence. Even though it is also a viola- PNG using a nationally representative dataset.  Findings tion of human rights [7], it is also a social issue that has a from the study will help improve interventions aimed at negative effect on economic empowerment, especially for reducing IPV in PNG. women who are victims. A population-based IPV survey conducted in India in Methods 2011 found that about 8,618 women died as a result of Data source and study design intimate partner abuse [8]. IPV continues to be a signifi- We used data from the 2016–18 PNG Demographic and cant threat to women’s lives around the world, as well as Health Survey (DHS). The data were extracted from the an obstacle to empowering women as part of Sustain- women’s file (individual recode file). DHS is a nationally able Development Goal (SDG) 5 [9]. Historically, women representative survey conducted in over 85 low-and- have been the primary victims of IPV in all countries [4, middle-income countries globally since its inception 5, 10, 11]. Almost one-third (27%) of women aged 15 to [21]. Specifically, the 2016–18 PNG DHS was conducted 49  years worldwide have experienced lifetime intimate to provide up-to-date estimates of demographic and relationship abuse [7]. While it is a huge problem around health indicators, including domestic violence [21]. A the world, data shows that it’s becoming more common cross-sectional design was used in the DHS. The data in many developing Asian and African countries [7]. were collected from the respondents using standardized Previous studies have  demonstrated that exposure structured interviewer-administered questionnaires. to interparental violence is a substantial predictor of Respondents for the DHS were sampled using a strati- IPV justification in a variety of circumstances [1, 12, fied two-stage cluster sampling technique. Clusters were 13]. There is evidence that women’s socioeconomic sta- chosen in the first step using a probability proportional tus (wealth index and education level) influences how to size sampling approach. In the second stage, a system- women justify IPV [14]. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), atic sampling technique was used to select a predeter- Aboagye et al. [12] found that women who had been sub- mined number of households (usually 28–30). Detailed jected to interparental violence were more likely to justify sampling technique has been highlighted in the literature IPV than those who had not been subjected. In Ghana, [22]. We included 2839 women of reproductive age (15– Adu [14] found that women with higher education levels 49 years) in a sexual union (married and cohabiting) who and those who were wealthier were less likely to defend had complete data on all the variables of interest in the intimate partner abuse. study. The dataset used is freely available to download at High levels of IPV justification have been seen in both https:// dhspr ogram. com/ data/ datas et_ admin/ index. cfm. male and female partners in various circumstances [12, We based on the Strengthening the Reporting of Obser- 15], with women being more prone to justify IPV [12, 15]. vational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines in In Papua New Guinea (PNG), IPV affects more than 80% drafting this paper [23]. of women, a rate that is thought to be one of the highest in the world and can occasionally result in serious bodily Variables harm [16–18]. About 41% of men reported raping their Justification of IPV was the outcome variable in the study. wives within the preceding year, according to a study on We estimated IPV justification using the responses to gender-based violence in PNG [16]. In PNG, the preva- five questions regarding their husband’s/partner’s justi- lence of spousal rape rose to about 87.3% [19]. According fication of wife-beatings. The five instances under which to Adu et al. [11], the majority of IPV instances in PNG wives were beaten include (i) burning food, (ii) argu- are rarely recorded, and as a result, there is a pervasive ing with him, (iii) going out without telling him, (iv) A boagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 3 of 10 neglecting the children, and (v) refusing to have sexual and richest), sex of household head (male and female), intercourse with him. The response options as found in place of residence (urban and rural), and region (south- the DHS were “no”, “yes”, and “don’t know”. We dropped ern, Highlands, Momase, and Islands) as found in the all those who responded “don’t know”. Afterward, women DHS. Community literacy level and community socio- whose response option was “yes” in any of the five items economic status were categorized into “low”, “medium”, were said to have justified IPV whilst those with “no” and “high”. responses in all the items were categorized as not justify- ing IPV [10–12, 24–26]. Statistical analyses We considered exposure to interparental violence Stata software version 16.0 (Stata Corporation, College as the key explanatory variable in our study. With this Station, TX, USA) was used to perform the statistical variable, the women were asked “As far as you know, analysis. The proportion of IPV justification among did your father ever beat your mother?”. The response the women was expressed as a percentage (Fig.  1). options were “no”, “yes”, and “don’t know”. We dropped Using a cross-tabulation, we looked at the distribu- those who responded “don’t know”. The response option tion of IPV justification across exposure to interparen- “yes” was recoded as exposed to interparental violence. tal violence and the covariates (Table  1). To examine The response option "no" was recoded as not exposed the association between interparental violence expo- to interparental violence. Studies using the DHS dataset sure and IPV justification, we utilized a multivariable have utilized similar coding and categorization [1, 12, 27]. binary multilevel regression analysis. We checked for Based on a review of the literature [10–12, 24–26], we evidence of collinearity among the study variables included twelve variables as covariates in the study. Also, using the variance inflation factor (VIF). The results the covariates were selected based on their availability showed no evidence of collinearity among the vari- in the PNG DHS. We grouped the covariates into indi- ables (minimum VIF = 1.03, maximum VIF = 3.96, and vidual-level and household/community-level variables, mean VIF = 2.63). We used five models to examine the respectively. The individual-level covariates consisted of association between interparental violence exposure the age of the women, educational level, current work- and IPV justification, controlling for the covariates. ing status, marital status, parity, and exposure to mass Model O (empty model) was created to determine how media. We utilized the existing coding for the current the clustering of the primary sample units affected the working status (no and yes) as found in the DHS. We IPV justification. In Model I, we included only the key recoded age of women into “15–24”, “25–34”, and “35–49”. explanatory variable (exposure to interparental vio- The women’s partners age was coded as “15–24”, “25–34”, lence) and the IPV justification. We placed the key “35–44”, and “45 + ”. Level of education of the women and explanatory variable, the individual-level covariates their partners was recoded as “no education”, “primary”, and IPV justification in Model II. Model III contained and “secondary or higher”. Parity was coded as “zero the key explanatory variable, household/commu- birth”, “one birth”, “two births”, “three births”, and “four nity level covariates, and IPV justification. Finally, in or more birth”. Marital status was coded into “married” Model IV, we included all the explanatory variables and “cohabiting”. Exposure to mass media was created (key explanatory, individual-level, and community- as an index variable from frequency of listening to radio, level variables, respectively) and IPV justification. We frequency of watching television, and frequency of read- presented the results of the regression analysis using ing newspaper or magazine. The responses in each of the crude odds ratio (cOR) and adjusted odds ratios (aOR), variable were “not at all”, “less than once a week”, and “at with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical least once a week”. Women whose response options were significance was set at p < 0.05. To evaluate model fit- “not at all” were recoded as not exposed (no) whilst the ness and comparability, the Akaike Information Cri- remaining response options were recoded as exposed terion (AIC) was utilized. The model with the least (yes) in each of the three variables. Based on the recoded AIC value was selected as the best-fitted model for responses, a new variable called the mass media exposure the study. All of the analyses were weighted to account was created with the categories being “none [not exposed for over-and under-sampling, non-response, and to to any of the three variables])”, “one [exposed to only one increase the generalizability of the findings. The Stata of the three variables]”, and “two or more [exposed to at command "svyset" was used in all analyses. least two of the three variables]”. Wealth index, place of residence, region, community socioeconomic status, and Ethical consideration community literacy level were the household/community We did not seek ethical approval for this study since level covariates in the study. We maintained the existing the dataset is available in the public domain. However, coding for wealth index (poorest, poorer, middle, richer, we sought permission from the MEASURE DHS before Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 4 of 10 Fig. 1 Prevalence of intimate partner violence justification among the women in Papua New Guinea using the dataset and it was granted. We adhered to the Distribution of intimate partner violence justification ethical guidelines regarding the use of secondary data- across the explanatory variables set for publication. The detailed information concerning Tables  1 present the distribution of IPV justification the ethical guidelines can be accessed at http:// goo. gl/ across exposure to interparental violence and the covari- ny8T6X. ates explanatory variables. Less than half of the women (48.1%) reported having been exposed to interparental Results violence. Most of the women who were exposed to inter- Background characteristics of the respondents parental violence (74.4%) indicated justification of IPV. Table 1 presents the background characteristics of the The Chi-square test showed a significantly high propor- respondents. The mean age of the respondents was tion of women exposed to interparental violence justified 32.5 (SD = 7.90) years. Most of the women were aged IPV than among women who had not been exposed to 25–34 (40.4%). Majority of the women were married interparental violence (74.4% vs 68.9%, p = 0.014). Except (81.4%), and had 4 or more births (40.5%). Most of for exposure to interparental violence, women’s age, part- the women resided in rural areas (89.9%) and in the ners age, and region, all the remaining variables had no Highlands Region (36.0%). Most of the women had statistically significant relationship with the justification attained primary school education (46.1%), currently of IPV (Table 1). not working (67.3%), and not exposed to mass media (53.5%). Most of the women resided in communities Association between exposure to interparental violence with low literacy level (47.3%) and socioeconomic and intimate partner violence justification status (60.5%) and were in the poorest wealth index Table  2 presents the results of the association between (20.3%) (Table 1). exposure to interparental violence and IPV justification. In Model I, without adjusting for covariates, women who Prevalence of intimate partner violence justification were exposed to interparental violence were more likely among women in Papua New Guinea to justify IPV (cOR = 1.29; (95%CI = 1.07, 1.55) compared Figure 1 shows the prevalence of IPV justification among to those who were not exposed. After adjusting for all the women in sexual union in PNG. Overall, 71.5% (95% covariates, women exposed to interparental violence had CI = 69.0, 73.9) of the women justified IPV. More than high odds of justifying IPV [aOR = 1.26; (95%CI = 1.05, half of the women justified the partner’s beating if the 1.53)] compared to those who were not exposed. wife neglects the children (61.2%) and goes out without The results on other covariates showed women who informing or the permission of the husband (54.3%). resided in the Highlands (aOR = 2.50, 95%CI = 1.78, Approximately 46% of the women also indicated beating 3.51), Momase (aOR = 1.96, 95%CI = 1.40, 2.75), and of a wife is justified if the wife argues with the husband Islands (aOR = 1.42, 95%CI = 1.01, 1.99) were more and about a third of women cited burning of food (36.3%) likely to justify IPV compared to those in the Southern and refusal to have sex with the husband (36.0%) as justi- region. Women who were exposed to one (aOR = 1.38, fication of IPV. 95%CI = 1.06, 1.82) mass media were more likely A boagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 5 of 10 Table 1 Distribution of intimate partner violence justification across the explanatory variables Variable Weighted IPV Justification Frequency Percentage Yes P-value Exposed to interparental violence 0.014 No 1474 51.9 68.9 [65.4, 72.1] Yes 1365 48.1 74.4 [71.1, 77.4] Women’s age (years) (Mean = 32.5;SD = 7.90) Women’s age 0.039 15–24 581 20.5 78.7 [7.19, 84.2] 25–34 1148 40.4 71.3 [67.2, 75.0] 35–49 1110 39.1 68.0 [63.3, 72.4] Women’s educational level 0.523 No education 760 26.8 70.8 [65.2, 75.8] Primary 1431 50.4 72.7 [69.4, 75.9] Secondary or higher 648 22.8 69.7 [65.5, 73.5] Marital status 0.112 Married 2311 81.4 70.7 [67.8, 73.4] Cohabiting 528 18.6 75.3 [70.2, 79.8] Current working status 0.739 No 1912 67.3 71.8 [68.8, 74.7] Yes 927 32.7 70.9 [66.2, 75.2] Parity 0.052 Zero birth 241 8.5 79.8 [72.8, 85.4] 1 birth 500 17.6 75.4 [67.7, 81.7] 2 births 476 16.8 73.7 [67.4, 79.2] 3 births 471 16.6 72.0 [66.8, 76.7] 4 or more births 1151 40.5 67.0 [62.2, 71.5] Exposure to mass media 0.067 None 1519 53.5 69.2 [65.8, 72.4] One 545 19.2 75.5 [70.1, 80.2] Two or more 775 27.3 73.3 [69.2, 77.0] Partner’s educational level 0.296 No education 561 19.8 67.8 [61.2, 73.8] Primary 1309 46.1 72.2 [68.6, 75.4] Secondary or higher 969 34.1 72.8 [69.3, 76.0] Partner’s age 0.005 15–24 180 6.3 86.1 [78.7, 91.2] 25–34 1042 36.7 70.5 [65.3, 75.2] 35–44 994 35.0 73.8 [69.5, 77.8] 45 + 623 21.9 65.3 [60.2, 70.0] Wealth index 0.908 Poorest 575 20.3 70.4 [64.6, 75.7] Poorer 558 19.7 71.3 [65.3, 76.6] Middle 617 21.7 70.7 [66.0, 75.1] Richer 560 19.7 71.7 [66.5, 76.5] Richest 529 18.6 73.6 [69.2, 77.6] Place of residence 0.931 Urban 287 10.1 71.7 [66.6, 76.4] Rural 2552 89.9 71.5 [68.8, 74.1] Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 6 of 10 Table 1 (continued) Variable Weighted IPV Justification Frequency Percentage Yes P-value Region < 0.001 Southern Region 509 17.9 61.2 [56.6, 65.6] Highlands Region 1021 36.0 75.0 [70.3, 79.2] Momase Region 861 30.3 74.9 [70.6, 78.8] Islands Region 448 15.8 68.8 [62.5, 74.5] Community literacy level 0.712 Low 1342 47.3 71.2 [67.0, 75.0] Medium 784 27.6 73.0 [68.5, 77.2] High 713 25.1 70.5 [66.1, 74.5] Community socioeconomic status 0.575 Low 1718 60.5 70.6 [67.3, 73.6] Medium 253 8.9 75.1 [64.6, 83.3] High 868 30.6 72.4 [68.2, 76.2] SD Standard deviation, P-values were generated from the chi-square test to justify IPV compared to those who had no expo- from witnessing the abuse of their mother and the moth- sure to mass media. On the other hand, women aged er’s attitude of accepting and normalizing such violence 25–34 (aOR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.48, 0.91) and 35–49 over time [1]. Our finding suggests that in order to reduce (aOR = 0.66, 95%CI = 0.44, 0.97) were less likely to jus- exposure to violence for future generations, interventions tify IPV compared to those aged 15–24 years. may focus on preventing IPV. Interventions could include educational campaigns that increase awareness about Discussion IPV and its related consequences and encourage married This study examined the association between exposure to partners in identifying and avoiding such behaviors. interparental violence and IPV justification among women Women who were older were less likely to justify IPV. in PNG. We found that 71.5% of the women justify IPV, Similar findings have been reported in other low-and mid- and being exposed to interparental violence increased the dle-income countries [34, 35]. Women may acquire more likelihood of women justifying IPV. The rate of IPV justi- education as they get old increasing their awareness and fication among women found in this study is higher than insights on IPV and may change their attitudes toward IPV reported among married women in Bangladash (32.4%- as they become older. Older women may also have accu- 46.5%) [28, 29], and Turkey (41%) [30] but comparable to mulated/cultivated self-esteem, self-reliance, and self-con- the rates seen in some countries in such as Ethiopia (74%) fidence in their relationships over the years [32]. [31] and Mali (76.6%) [32]. Consistent with previous stud- Women who were exposed to the mass media were ies [28, 31–33], “beating justified if wife neglects children”, found to justify IPV. Consistent findings have been “beating justified if wife goes out without telling husband”, reported in Mali [32], but in contrast to the finding and “beating justified if wife argues with husband” were reported in Ghana, where IPV justification was less likely mostly indicated as reasons for justifying IPV. Justifica- among women exposed to mass media [36]. The mass tion of IPV among women is indicated to be high among media have become platforms for social discourse and women around the world, particularly in communities could be that in societies where IPV is common and as where IPV is common [28], which is the case in PNG [16]. such normalized/accepted [28], such behaviours may be We found that women who have been exposed to propagated through these media. However, the signifi- interparental violence were more likely to justify IPV in cance of the mass media in promoting equality and social PNG. This is consistent with findings from several low- inclusion [37] could be used in rolling out educational and middle-income countries [12, 28, 34]. Children are campaigns to increase awareness about IPV and its asso- reported to learn by observing their parents and emu- ciated negative consequences and demystify community lating their behaviors from childhood to adulthood [28]; justification or acceptance of such behaviours. hence, women’s justification of IPV could be nurtured IPV is indicated to be more common in less devel- oped regions [1, 38]. Consistent with our study, women A boagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 7 of 10 Table 2 Association between exposure to interparental violence and intimate partner violence justification in Papua New Guinea Variable Model O Model I cOR [95% CI] Model II aOR [95% CI] Model III aOR [95% CI] Model IV aOR [95% CI] Fixed effect Exposed to inter-parental violence No 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Yes 1.29** [1.07, 1.55] 1.29** [1.06, 1.55] 1.27* [1.06, 1.54] 1.26* [1.05, 1.53] Women’s age 15–24 1.00 1.00 25–34 0.65* [0.47, 0.90] 0.66* [0.48, 0.91] 35–49 0.65* [0.44, 0.96] 0.66* [0.44, 0.97] Women’s educational level No education 1.00 1.00 Primary 0.93 [0.71, 1.21] 1.01 [0.76, 1.33] Secondary or higher 0.73 [0.52, 1.02] 0.79 [0.55, 1.13] Marital status Married 1.00 1.00 Cohabiting 1.11 [0.86, 1.44] 1.05 [0.81, 1.37] Current working status No 1.00 1.00 Yes 0.95 [0.77, 1.17] 0.99 [0.80, 1.22] Parity Zero birth 1.00 1.00 1 birth 0.83 [0.55, 1.25] 0.85 [0.57, 1.28] 2 births 0.95 [0.64, 1.43] 1.00 [0.67, 1.49] 3 births 0.94 [0.63, 1.41] 0.98 [0.66, 1.47] 4 or more births 0.97 [0.66, 1.43] 1.04 [0.71, 1.53] Exposure to mass media None 1.00 1.00 One 1.36* [1.04, 1.78] 1.38* [1.06, 1.82] Two or more 1.28 [0.98, 1.68] 1.26 [0.95, 1.67] Partner’s educational level No education 1.00 1.00 Primary 1.16 [0.87, 1.55] 1.30 [0.96, 1.74] Secondary or higher 1.15 [0.83, 1.58] 1.22 [0.87, 1.70] Partner’s age 15–24 1.00 1.00 25–34 0.79 [0.49, 1.29] 0.79 [0.49, 1.28] 35–44 0.74 [0.44, 1.25] 0.72 [0.43, 1.21] 45 + 0.58 [0.33, 1.01] 0.55* [0.32, 0.96] Wealth index Poorest 1.00 1.00 Poorer 1.00 [0.71, 1.39] 0.99 [0.71, 1.38] Middle 0.88 [0.63, 1.22] 0.84 [0.59, 1.18] Richer 0.97 [0.67, 1.40] 0.93 [0.63, 1.36] Richest 0.98 [0.63, 1.52] 1.00 [0.62, 1.61] Place of residence Urban 1.00 1.00 Rural 0.80 [0.55, 1.18] 0.82 [0.56, 1.21] Region Southern Region 1.00 1.00 Highlands Region 2.28*** [1.64, 3.16] 2.50*** [1.78, 3.51] Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 8 of 10 Table 2 (continued) Variable Model O Model I cOR [95% CI] Model II aOR [95% CI] Model III aOR [95% CI] Model IV aOR [95% CI] Momase Region 1.88*** [1.35, 2.62] 1.96*** [1.40, 2.75] Islands Region 1.34 [0.96, 1.88] 1.42* [1.01, 1.99] Community literacy level Low 1.00 1.00 Medium 1.18 [0.86, 1.61] 1.16 [0.84, 1.61] High 1.05 [0.75, 1.48] 1.06 [0.74, 1.53] Community socioeconomic status Low 1.00 1.00 Medium 1.41 [0.87, 2.27] 1.40 [0.87, 2.26] High 1.03 [0.76, 1.41] 1.00 [0.73, 1.37] Random effect result PSU variance (95% CI) 0.994 [0.711, 1.390] 0.957 [0.680, 1.346] 0.972 [0.6885, 1.372] 0.847 [0.589, 1.218] 0.845 [0.584, 1.223] ICC 0.232 0.225 0.228 0.205 0.204 LR Test 94.03 (< 0.001) 88.71 (< 0.001) 86.54 (< 0.001) 72.09 (< 0.001) 68.80 (< 0.001) Wald chi‑square Reference 7.03 (0.008) 41.03 (0.001) 39.38 (< 0.001) 75.27 (< 0.001) Model fitness Log‑likelihood ‑1716.1022 ‑1712.5932 ‑1694.7094 ‑1696.364 ‑1676.5866 AIC 3436.204 3431.186 3429.419 3422.728 3417.173 N 2839 2839 2839 2839 2839 Number of clusters 721 721 721 721 721 aOR adjusted odds ratios, CI Confidence interval, cOR Crude odds ratio * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001; 1.00 = Reference category, PSU Primary sampling unit, ICC Intra-class correlation, LR Test = Likelihood ratio test, AIC Akaike’s information criterion who resided in Highlands, Momase, and Islands regions Conclusions were more likely to justify IPV compared to those This study has demonstrated that women’s exposure from the Southern region, which is the National capi- to interparental violence is a significant predictor tal region and may be more developed than the other of IPV justification in later life. Our study has also regions. As such, women from the Southern region of shown that women of older ages were less likely to PNG may have access to high education and employ- justify IPV; whereas those who resided in Highlands, ment, which could help increase their awareness about Momase, and Islands regions, and those who were fre- the negative effects of IPV and empower them. quently exposed to the mass media were more likely to justify IPV. This study suggests the need for conscious Strength and limitations and continuous efforts to identify and assist women This study was drawn on data from a nationally repre- who have been exposed to interparental violence to sentative and large sample thereby enhancing the rig- help prevent its transition to later life. Policies and our of the study and the generalizability of the findings. interventions should be developed and implemented Some limitations to the study are however noted. The to curtail children’s exposure to domestic violence in use of a cross-sectional study design limits the drawing their households. Also, laws and policies need to con- of any causal inferences from the findings. In addition, demn any violence and demystify community justifi- using self-reported data suggests there could be an issue cation and acceptance of intimate partner violence, with recall and social desirability bias which may result taking into consideration the significant sociodemo- in the under-or over-reporting of the study variables, graphic characteristics of the women highlighted in particularly justification of IPV. the study. A boagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 9 of 10 Abbreviations References AIC Akaike information criterion 1. Islam M, Rahman M, Broidy L, Haque SE, Saw YM, Duc NH, Haque M, Rah‑ aOR Adjusted odds ratio man M, Mostofa M. Assessing the link between witnessing inter‑parental BIC Bayesian information criterion violence and the perpetration of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh. CI Confidence interval BMC Public Health. 2017;17(1):1. DHS Demographic and health survey 2. Amole TG, Bello S, Odoh C, Aliyu MH, Iliyasu Z. Correlates of female‑per‑ HIV Human immunodeficiency virus petrated intimate partner violence in Kano, Northern Nigeria. J Interpers ICC Inter‑cluster correlation Violence. 2016;31(12):2240–54. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 088626 0515 ICF Inner city fund 573576. IPV I ntimate partner violence 3. Devries KM, Kishor S, Johnson H, Stöckl H, Bacchus LJ, Garcia‑Moreno C, PNG P apua new Guinea Watts C. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of preva‑ STROBE S trengthening reporting of observational studies in epidemiology lence data from 19 countries. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18(36):158–70. VIF V ariance inflation factor 4. Caldwell JE, Swan SC, Woodbrown VD. Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychol Violence. 2012;2(1):42. https:// doi. Acknowledgements org/1 0. 1037/a 0026 296. We are grateful to the MEASURE DHS for granting free access to the original 5. Dalal K, Lindqvist K. A national study of the prevalence and correlates of data. domestic violence among women in India. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health. 2012;24(2):265–77. https://d oi. org/ 10.1 177/1 01053 95103 84499. Authors’ contributions 6. Sabri B, Wirtz AL, Ssekasanvu J, Nonyane BA, Nalugoda F, Kagaayi J, RGA, AS, BOA, and SY conceived the study. BYAA, AC, and CA reviewed litera‑ Ssekubugu R, Wagman JA. Intimate partner violence, HIV and sexually ture. RGA, AS, and BOA analysed the data. All authors critically reviewed the transmitted infections in fishing, trading and agrarian communities in manuscript. The authors read and amended drafts of the paper and approved Rakai. Uganda BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–6. https://d oi. org/ 10. the final version. RGA had the final responsibility to submit for publication. The 1186/s 12889‑ 019‑ 6909‑8. author(s) read and approved the final manuscript. 7. World Health Organization. Violence against Women. 2021. Accessed from https:// www.w ho.i nt/n ews‑ room/ fact‑ sheets/ detail/ violen ce‑a gain Funding st‑ women None. 8. Sabri B, Renner LM, Stockman JK, Mittal M, Decker MR. Risk factors for severe intimate partner violence and violence‑related injuries among Availability of data and materials women in India. Women Health. 2014;54(4):281–300. The dataset used is available at https:// dhspr ogram. com/ data/d atas et/P apua‑ 9. Agarwal B. Gender equality, food security and the sustainable develop‑ New‑G uinea_S tanda rd‑ DHS_ 2017.c fm?fl ag=1 ment goals. Curr Opinion Environ Sustain. 2018;1(34):26–32. 10. Aboagye RG, Okyere J, Seidu AA, Hagan JE, Ahinkorah BO. Experience of intimate partner violence among women in sexual unions: is supportive Declarations attitude of women towards intimate partner violence a correlate? Health‑ care. 2021;9(5):563–73. Ethics approval and consent to participate 11. Adu C, Asare BY, Agyemang‑Duah W, Adomako EB, Agyekum AK, Peprah The methodology adopted for this study were carried out in accordance with P. Impact of socio‑demographic and economic factors on intimate part‑ relevant guidelines and regulations.We did not seek ethical approval for this ner violence justification among women in union in Papua New Guinea. study since the dataset is available in the public domain. However, we sought Arch Pub Health. 2022;80(1):1. permission from the MEASURE DHS before using the dataset and it was 12. Aboagye RG, Seidu AA, Asare BY, Peprah P, Addo IY, Ahinkorah BO. granted. We adhered to the ethical guidelines regarding the use of second‑ Exposure to interparental violence and justification of intimate partner ary dataset for publication. The detailed information concerning the ethical violence among women in sexual unions in sub‑Saharan Africa. Arch Pub guidelines can be accessed at http://g oo.g l/n y8T6X. Health. 2021;79(1):1–11. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13690‑ 021‑ 00684‑3. 13. Uthman OA, Moradi T, Lawoko S. Are individual and community accept‑ Consent for publication ance and witnessing of intimate partner violence related to its occur‑ Not Applicable. rence? Multilevel structural equation model. PloS One. 2011;6(12):e27738. https:// doi. org/1 0.1 371/ journa l. pone. 002773 8. Competing interests 14. Adu C. Socio‑economic inequalities in intimate partner violence justifica‑ The authors decare that they have no competing interest. tion among women in Ghana: analysis of the 2014 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey data. International Health. 2022. Author details 15. Alio AP, Clayton HB, Garba M, Mbah AK, Daley E, Salihu HM. Spousal 1 Department of Family and Community Health, Fred N. Binka School of Public concordance in attitudes toward violence and reported physical abuse Health, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Hohoe, Ghana. 2 Curtin School in African couples. J Inter Viol. 2011;26(14):2790–810. https:// doi.o rg/ 10. of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 3 Institute of Applied 1177/ 08862 605103 90951. Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK. 4 College 16. Darko E, Smith W, Walker D. Gender violence in Papua New Guinea: The of Public Health, Medical and Veterinary Sciences, James Cook University, cost to business. London, United Kingdom: Overseas Development Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia. 5 Center for Social Research in Health, Univer‑ Institute. 2015. sity of New South Wales Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia. 6 Department 17. Mohamadi S, Shahoei R, Soofizadeh N. Relationship of domestic violence of Social and Behavioural Science, School of Public Health, University of Ghana, from husband and preeclampsia in postpartum women referred to San‑ Legon‑ Accra, Ghana. 7 Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, andaj medical education center in 2017. Iranian J Obstetrics, Gynecology McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 8 Centre For Gender and Advocacy, and Infert. 2021;24(2):71–9. Takoradi Technical University, P.O.Box 256, Takoradi, Ghana. 9 School of Public 18. Fox T. Domestic violence as a major cause of trauma in Western Province. Health, Faculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Papua New Guinea Pacific Health Dialog. 2011;17(1):65–75. 10 School of International Development and Global Studies, University 19. Fulu E, Jewkes R, Roselli T, Garcia‑Moreno C. Prevalence of and factors of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. 11 The George Institute for Global Health, Imperial associated with male perpetration of intimate partner violence: findings College London, London, UK. from the UN Multi‑country Cross‑sectional Study on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. Lancet Glob Health. 2013;1(4):e187–207. Received: 9 July 2022 Accepted: 28 February 2023 20. Ganster‑Breidler M. Gender‑based violence and the impact on women’s health and well‑being in Papua New Guinea. Contemporary PNG Studies. 2010;13:17–30. Aboagye et al. BMC Women’s Health (2023) 23:122 Page 10 of 10 21. Corsi DJ, Neuman M, Finlay JE, Subramanian SV. Demographic and health surveys: a profile. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(6):1602–13. 22. Aliaga A, Ruilin R. Cluster optimal sample size for demographic and health surveys. In7th Inter Conference Teach Statistics–ICOTS. 2006;7(2):7. 23. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. Strobe initiative. the strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Intern J Surg. 2014;12(12):1495–9. 24. Sano Y, Konkor I, Antabe R, Ragetlie R. Physical intimate partner violence justification and female genital mutilation in Kenya: evidence from the demographic and health survey. J Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2021;30(6):781–91. 25. Meinhart M, Seff I, Darmstadt GL, Weber AM, Stark L. Attitudinal accept‑ ance of intimate partner violence among adolescents and young adults in Nigeria and Tanzania: an exploration into target reference groups. J Adolesc Health. 2020;66(1):S3–8. 26. Okenwa‑Emegwa L, Lawoko S, Jansson B. Attitudes toward physi‑ cal intimate partner violence against women in Nigeria. SAGE Open. 2016;6(4):2158244016667993. 27. Solanke BL. Does exposure to interparental violence increase women’s risk of intimate partner violence? Evidence from Nigeria demographic and health survey. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2018;18(1):1–3. 28. Jesmin SS. Married women’s justification of intimate partner violence in Bangladesh: Examining community norm and individual‑level risk factors. Violence Vict. 2015;30(6):984–1003. https://d oi. org/1 0. 1891/ 0886‑ 6708. VV‑D‑ 14‑ 00066. 29. Sayem AM, Begum HA, Moneesha SS. Attitudes towards justifying inti‑ mate partner violence among married women in Bangladesh. J Biosoc Sci. 2012;44(6):641–60. 30. Marshall GA, Furr LA. Factors that affect women’s attitudes toward domestic violence in Turkey. Violence Vict. 2010;25(2):265–77. 31. Uthman OA, Lawoko S, Moradi T. Factors associated with attitudes towards intimate partner violence against women: a comparative analysis of 17 sub‑Saharan countries. BMC Int Health Hum Rights. 2009;9(1):1–5. 32. Seidu AA, Dzantor S, Sambah F, Ahinkorah BO, Ameyaw EK. Participa‑ tion in household decision making and justification of wife beating: evidence from the 2018 Mali Demographic and Health Survey. Int Health. 2022;14(1):74–83. 33. Zegeye B, Olorunsaiye CZ, Ahinkorah BO, Ameyaw EK, Budu E, Seidu AA, Yaya S. Understanding the factors associated with married women’s atti‑ tudes towards wife‑beating in sub‑Saharan Africa. BMC Womens Health. 2022;22(1):1–1. 34. Yount KM, Li L. Women’s, “justification” of domestic violence in Egypt. J Marriage Fam. 2009;71(5):1125–40. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1741‑ 3737. 2009. 00659.x. 35. Doku DT, Asante KO. Women’s approval of domestic physical violence against wives: analysis of the Ghana demographic and health sur‑ vey. BMC Womens Health. 2015;15(1):1–8. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12905‑0 15‑ 0276‑0. 36. Dickson KS, Ameyaw EK, Darteh EK. Understanding the endorsement of wife beating in Ghana: evidence of the 2014 Ghana demographic and health survey. BMC Womens Health. 2020;20(1):1–7. https://d oi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12905‑ 020‑0 0897‑8. 47. 37. Hassanzadeh M. Women empowerment: A study of media and its role in empowerment of Afghan’s women. Indian J Sci Technol. 2018;11(23):1–8. 38. Gebrezgi BH, Badi MB, Cherkose EA, Weldehaweria NB. Factors associ‑ ated with intimate partner physical violence among women attending Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: antenatal care in Shire Endaselassie town, Tigray, northern Ethiopia: a • fast, convenient online submission cross‑sectional study, July 2015. Reprod Health. 2017;14(1):1. • thorough peer review by experienced rese archers in your field Publisher’s Note • rapid publication on acceptance Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑ • support for research data, including large and complex data types lished maps and institutional affiliations. • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions