Intimate partner violence against women as a risk factor for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Le résumé fourni par la source
This study aimed to synthesize evidence on the association between intimate partner violence against women and hypertension through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Seven databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, LILACS, Google Scholar, and WHOLIS) were searched without restrictions on time period or language. The searches were conducted in March 2023 and updated in December 2025. After screening 4001 articles, 18 studies were initially selected. The literature search was subsequently updated to include publications from 2023 to 2025, resulting in the inclusion of two additional studies. Overall, the selected articles were published between 2000 and 2025. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries, with sample sizes ranging from 425 to 70,156 participants aged 15–89 years. The types of IPV assessed included any IPV in the past 12 months or over the lifetime, as well as economic, emotional, physical, and sexual violence. Methodological quality assessment identified seven studies with high risk of bias, seven with moderate risk, and four with low risk. Meta-analysis showed a modest but statistically significant association between lifetime exposure to any IPV and hypertension, while no significant associations were observed for other IPV types. These findings underscore the need for more rigorous epidemiological studies with representative samples to better elucidate this relationship.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Intimate partner violence against women as a risk factor for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis
- Date Crossref
- 01/05/2026
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.