Skip to main content
Log in

Neighborhood Influences and Intimate Partner Violence: Does Geographic Setting Matter?

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Intimate partner violence is one health-related outcome that has received growing attention from those interested in the role of neighborhood context. A limitation of existing contextual health research is its' failure to look beyond urban settings. Because suburban and rural areas have received so little attention, it is not clear whether data generated from urban samples can be generalized to non-urban geographic settings. We began to explore this issue using concept mapping, a participatory, mixed method approach. Data from 37 urban and 24 suburban women are used to explore and compare perceptions of neighborhood characteristics related to intimate partner violence. While several similarities exist between the perceptions of participants residing in urban and suburban areas, some differences were uncovered. These results provide valuable information regarding the perceived relationship between neighborhood context and intimate partner violence and suggest future avenues for research interested in examining the role of geographic setting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kramer A, Lorenzon D, Mueller G. Prevalence of intimate partner violence and health implications for women using emergency departments and primary care clinics.Women Health Issues. 2004;14(1):19–29.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Campbell J. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002 Apr 13;359(9314):1331–1336.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Campbell J, Jones AS, Dienemann J, et al. Intimate partner violence and physical health consequences. Arch Intern Med. 2002 May 27;162(10):1157–1163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Plichta SB, Falik M. Prevalence of violence and its implications for women's health. Women Health Issues. 2001 May–Jun;11(3):244–258.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. O'Campo P, Gielen AC, Faden RR, Xue X, Kass N, Wang MC. Violence by male partners against women during the childbearing year: a contextual analysis. Am J Public Health. 1995 Aug;85(8 Pt 1):1092–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cunradi CB, Caetano R, Clark C, Schafer J. Neighborhood poverty as a predictor of intimate partner violence among white, black, and Hispanic couples in the United States: a multilevel analysis. Ann Epidemiol. 2000 Jul;10(5):297–308.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Browning CR. The span of collective efficacy: extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. J Marriage Family. 2002;64(4):883–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. O'Campo P. Invited commentary: advancing theory and methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and health. Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jan 1;157(1):9–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rajaratman J, Burke JG, O'Campo P. (Accepted, Pending Revision). Maternal & child health and neighborhood residence: a review of the selection and construction of area-level variables.

  10. O'Campo P, Burke J, Peak GL, McDonnell KA, Gielen AC. Uncovering neighbourhood influences on intimate partner violence using concept mapping. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005 Jul;59(7):603–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Eberhardt MS, Pamuk ER. The importance of place of residence: examining health in rural and nonrural areas. Am J Public Health. 2004 Oct;94(10):1682–1686.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Block C. Does neighborhood collective efficacy make a difference behind closed doors? Presented at the American Sociological Association conference, August 2002.

  13. Miles-Doan R. Violence between spouses and intimates: does neighborhood context matter? Soc Forces. 1998;77(2):623–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pearlman DN, Zierler S, Gjelsvik A, Verhoek-Oftedahl W. Neighborhood environment, racial position, and risk of police-reported domestic violence: a contextual analysis. Public Health Rep. 2003 Jan–Feb;118(1):44–58.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Burke JG, O'Campo P, Peak G, Gielen A, McDonnell K, Trochim W. An introduction to concept mapping as a participatory public health research methodology. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1392–1410.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Trochim W. Concept mapping: soft science or hard art? Eval Program Planning. 1989;12:87–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bernard HR. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Walnut Creek, California: AltaMira; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Griffin Burke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burke, J.G., O'Campo, P. & Peak, G.L. Neighborhood Influences and Intimate Partner Violence: Does Geographic Setting Matter?. JURH 83, 182–194 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9031-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9031-z

Keywords

Navigation