Prevalence of intimate partner violence among child marriage victims and the comparison with adult marriages: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: The global prevalence of child marriage remains high. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to provide global estimates of the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) among women who are, or have been, child brides (i.e., child marriage population), and the relative risks compared with the adult marriage population. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, EBSCO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global for studies published from database inception to November 6, 2024. Eligible studies that reported IPV data either in the child marriage population or in both child marriage and adult marriage populations were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted to synthesise the data. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023408835). Findings: A total of 16 studies on IPV experienced in the past 12 months among child brides (N = 232,928) and 23 studies on ever-experienced IPV (N = 196,929) were included. The lifetime prevalence and 12-month prevalence of any IPV in women who underwent child marriage were 35% (95% CI: 28-43) and 24% (95% CI: 16-31), respectively. Compared with women married in adulthood, women married as children had substantially higher odds of experiencing any IPV over lifetime (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.22-1.65) or in the past 12 months (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.18-1.57). The excess risks persisted even after child brides reached adulthood. Consistent findings were obtained after restricting to nationally representative data. Interpretation: Women who underwent child marriage are vulnerable to and disproportionally affected by IPV, emphasising the need for international efforts on targeted IPV interventions and ending child marriage globally to prevent more victims. Funding: None.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.