Experience and perpetration of intimate partner violence and abuse by gender of respondent and their current partner before and during COVID-19 restrictions in 2020: a cross-sectional study in 13 countries.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) includes controlling behaviours, psychological, physical, sexual and financial abuse. Globally, surveys and emergency services have recorded an increase in IPVA since restrictions were imposed to limit COVID-19 transmission. Most studies have only included heterosexual women. METHODS: Data from the Global Drug Survey (an annual, anonymous, online survey collecting data on drug use) Special Edition were analysed to explore the impact of COVID-19 on people's lives, including their intimate relationships. Five relationship groupings were created using respondents' lived gender identity: women partnered with men (46.9%), women partnered with women (2.1%), men partnered with men (2.9%), men partnered with women (47.2%), and partnerships where one or both partners were non-binary (1%). Self-reported experience and perpetration of IPVA in the past 30 days before (February) and during COVID-19 restrictions (May or June) in 2020 (N = 35,854) was described and compared for different relationship groupings using Fishers Exact Tests. Changes in IPVA during restrictions were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: During restrictions, 17.8 and 16.6% of respondents had experienced or perpetrated IPVA respectively; 38.2% of survivors and 37.6% of perpetrators reported this had increased during restrictions. Greater proportions of non-binary respondents or respondents with a non-binary partner reported experiencing or perpetrating IPVA (p < .001) than other relationship groupings. 22.0% of respondents who were non-binary or had a non-binary partner, 19.5% of men partnered with men, 18.9% of men partnered with women, 17.1% of women partnered with women and 16.6% of women partnered with men reported experiencing IPVA. Respondents with higher psychological distress, poor coping with pandemic-related changes, relationship tension and changes (increases or increases and decreases) in alcohol consumption reported increased experience of IPVA during restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that IPVA can occur in all intimate relationships, regardless of gender of the perpetrator or survivor. Non-binary respondents or respondents with non-binary partners reported the highest use and experience of IPVA. Most IPVA victim support services have been designed for heterosexual, cisgender women. IPVA support services and perpetrator programmes must be tailored to support all perpetrators and survivors during the pandemic and beyond, regardless of their sexual or gender identity.

Parental intimate partner violence and abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: Learning from remote and hybrid working to influence future support.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated intimate partner violence and abuse. Incidents of intimate partner violence and abuse have increased as a result of household tensions due to enforced coexistence (multiple national lockdowns and working from home practices), economic stress related to loss of income, the disruption of social and protective networks and the decreased access to support services. This study aimed to understand how female survivors of parental intimate partner violence and abuse have experienced the adapted multi-agency response to intimate partner violence and abuse during the pandemic and consider learning from remote and hybrid working to influence future support. METHOD: This study adopted a qualitative research design, utilizing semi-structured interviews and a focus group. Data collection took place between March and September 2021. In total, 17 female survivors of intimate partner violence and abuse took part in the project; we conducted the semi-structured interviews via telephone (n = 9) and conducted an online focus group (n = 8). RESULTS: Findings identified that services for those experiencing intimate partner violence and abuse need to be innovative, flexible and adaptable and 'reach out' to survivors rather than waiting for survivors to 'reach in' and ask for support. Findings show that the digital space highlights 'missed opportunities' for engagement with both professionals and peers and the potential for digital poverty is a key implication, which risks entrenching existing inequalities. CONCLUSION: In-depth consideration needs to be given to the design, delivery and evaluation of online interventions and provision of support to improve access and acceptability of services, maximize their effectiveness and to support the safety of survivors.

Professionals' views on working in the field of domestic violence and abuse during the first wave of COVID-19: a qualitative study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown evoked great worries among professionals in the field of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) as they expected a rise of the phenomenon. While many countries reported increased DVA, the Netherlands did not. To understand this discrepancy and the overall impact of the lockdown on DVA support services, we interviewed DVA professionals about their experiences with DVA during the rise of COVID-19, the impact of the lockdown on clients and working conditions, and views on eHealth and online tools. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted among 16 DVA professionals with various specializations. This data was analyzed using open thematic coding and content analysis. RESULTS: Most professionals did not see an increase in DVA reports but they did notice more severe violence. They experienced less opportunities to detect DVA and worried about their clients' wellbeing and the quality of (online) care. Furthermore, their working conditions rapidly changed, with working from home and online, and they expressed frustration, insecurity and loneliness. Professionals feel eHealth and online tools are not always suitable but they do see them as an opportunity to increase reach and maintain services when physical contact is not possible. CONCLUSION: This study suggests DVA was probably under-detected during the lockdown rather than not having increased. The Dutch system heavily relies on professionals to detect and report DVA, suggesting a need for critical evaluation of the accessibility of professional help. Professionals experienced significant challenges and should themselves be supported psychologically and in their changed work practices to maintain their ability to aid survivors.