Search

Background There is growing evidence that climate-related disasters increase rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women. However, there are only limited understandings of the size and nature of such associations needed to inform appropriate programming. Gaps in evidence are particularly pronounced in the Pacific—one of the regions most at risk of increased disasters from climate change.Methods We analysed data from 450 men and 707 women collected as part of cross-sectional study of IPV experience, risk and protective factors in rural Samoan villages. Data were analysed using multivariable logistic regression models to assess associations between (1) men’s and women’s exposure to climate-related disasters and their mental health and (2) women’s exposure to climate-related disasters and their risk of IPV in the previous 12 months.Findings Reported symptoms of depression and anxiety were associated with having experienced a disaster. Those who reported experiencing a disaster 2–3 times had 61% greater odds of reporting depression (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.00 to 2.58) and 88% greater odds of reporting anxiety (OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.01 to 3.49), in comparison to those who reported never experiencing a disaster. Women who reported experiencing 2–3 disasters had more than twice the odds of experiencing recent IPV (adjusted OR, aOR 2.37, 95% CI 1.77 to 3.19), while those who reported experiencing 4+ disasters had over 8 times the odds (aOR 8.12; 95% CI 2.02 to 32.61).Interpretation This is one of the first studies in the Pacific region to provide quantitative evidence of associations between exposure to climate-related events and women’s experiences of IPV. We identify a clear dose–response relationship between higher exposure to climate-related events and an increased risk of IPV for women. This points to the role of cumulative stress from experiencing repeat disasters in driving higher rates of IPV in climate-affected regions.

Summary: Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects approximately 26% of women worldwide and is driven by a complex interplay of factors across individual, relationship/household, community and societal levels. Individual and relationship/household factors are well studied however little empirical evidence exists on factors at the community level that drive IPV which are needed to inform prevention interventions. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, multi-level analysis of factors associated with women's IPV experience in Samoa using the 2019–20 Demographic and Health Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey. We used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression to assess individual, relationship/household and community level effects on women's risk of physical, sexual and/or emotional IPV. Findings: The past year prevalence of physical, sexual and/or emotional IPV among women in Samoa was 31.4%. At the individual and relationship/household level, women's employment, witnessing IPV between parents, experiencing physical abuse from a parent, and partner's alcohol use and controlling behaviours were associated with higher risk of IPV. At the community level, higher levels of women with higher education and involved in household decision-making, and higher levels of men in employment were protective against IPV. Interpretation: A complex interplay of factors across individual, relationship/household and community levels are associated with women's experience of IPV in Samoa. Experiences of IPV are embedded within a broader context of violence against children and harmful alcohol use. Community contexts, including women's empowerment and men's employment, are also associated with women's IPV experience in Samoa. These findings not only demonstrate that public health issues such as IPV, violence against children and harmful alcohol use should be addressed together as part of multi-pronged approaches, but they point towards the importance of community-level analyses for designing and delivering community-based interventions. Greater knowledge of community dynamics will enable community-based interventions to create environments at the community level that support meaningful and sustainable change towards IPV prevention. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by UKRI (ref. MR/S033629/1). Translated abstract: Oto’otoga o le Sue’suega: E tusa ma le 26 % o tamaitai ua aafia I saua’ga i faigapa’aga i le lalolagi atoa e afua mai i ni mafua’aga mai le tagata lava ia, fai’a ma le aiga o loo nofotane ai, faapea lona tulaga I lona i lona nuu po o le sio’siomaga o nofo ai. O faigapaa’ga taitoatasi ma le siosiomaga I aiga taitasi o nonofo ai sa mafuli I ai lenei sue’suega, ae e faa’leai ni mafuaaga o sau’aga i nuu e manaomia e fuafua ai ni tali o lenei faa’fitauli tu’ga. Auala na Faa’ogaina I le Suesuega: Sa faa’ogaina ni i’uga o mafuaaga o Sau’aga o Faigapaaga mai le Nofoaga filiafila e le suesuega a le Soifua Maloloina na aa’fia ai tamaitai Samoa mai le tausaga 2019-20. Sa faaogaina le metotia ua taua faaperetania (Hierarchical Multivariable Logistic Regression) e suesueina ai tama’itai taitasi ua aa’fia ma latou fai’a ma aiga o latou paaga, o le aa’fiaga o nuu ma nofoaga i nei ituaiga sau’aga. Tau’nuuga o le Suesuega: E tusa ma le 31.4% o tamaitai Samoa na aa’fia i sauaga faa’faigapaaga e aafia ai le tino, feusuaiga, mafaufau ma lagona. O le va o le tamaitai ma le aiga o lana paaga I le itu I le tamaoaiga, lona tulaga I galuega ua molimauina ai sau’aga I le va o matua o le tamaitai ma matua foi o lana pa’aga. O upu faa’luma’luma a matua, o le taumafa ava malosi ma le pule’pule tutu o matua I fanau o tulaga ia ua avea ma faapogai o sau’aga I le va o tamaitai ma latou paa’ga. I totonu o nuu ma alalafaga e maualuga le numera o tamaitai aoaoina lelei o oloo auai I le faiga o faaiuga faapea foi ta’malii faigaluega lelei latou te puipui’a tama’itai mai sauaga ma latou paa’ga. Au’iliiliga o le Sue’su’ega: E lavelave ma faigata ona manino mai mafua’ga e aa’fia ai tamaitai i sauaga fai’faapaaga ona o le mafua’aga e mai lava i a te ia ma lona va ma lona aiga o loo nofotane ai, o matua aemaise foi le nuu. O aa’fiaga o nei sa’uaga ua aafia ai le fanau ona o le inu ava malosi le tau’pulea. O le siitia o tulaga o le aoaoina ma le tamaoaiga o tina ma le lelei o galuega a alii i nuu ma a’lala’faga, ua maitauina ua avea ma mafuaa’ga o nei sau’aga i Samoa. O tau’nuuga o lenei suesuega, ua faa’ilo ai i le vaega o le Soifua Maloloina Lautele o Sau’aga o fanau ma le inu ava malosi le tau pule’a e ta’tau ona faavae ai ni fofo o lenei faafitauli o Sau’aga o faa’faigapaaga e taulamua ai nuu ma alalafaga. O le ao’ga o le malamalama lelei I faavae o nuu ma alalafaga, o se atamai sili lelei ona lelei e faataatiatia ai alafua e gafataulimaina e nuu taitasi ina ia faa’foia ai Sau’aga I Fai’gapaaga mo se nofo lelei o aiga taitasi. Faatupeina o lenei Su’esu’ega: O lenei Suesuega na faa’tupeina e le faa’lapotopotoga ale UKRI (ref. MR/S033629/1). Disclaimer:: This translation in Samoan was submitted by the authors and we reproduce it as supplied. It has not been peer reviewed. Our editorial processes have only been applied to the original abstract in English, which should serve as reference for this manuscript.