Intimate Partner Violence Among Female Traders in Markets in Imo State: Prevalence, Pattern and Determinants

@ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 95 Global Journal of Research in Medical Sciences ISSN: 2583-3960 (Online) Volume 05 | Issue 06 | Nov.-Dec. | 2025 Journal homepage: https://gjrpublication.com/gjrms/ Original Research Article Intimate Partner Violence Among Female Traders in Markets in Imo State: Prevalence, Pattern and Determinants 1Olua Kingsley Nnamdi, 1Ozims S. J., 1Chinedu Eleonu P. O and 2Olua Ezinneamaka Ozichi 1Department Of Public Health Faculty of Health Sciences, Imo State University, Owerri. 2Federal Teaching Hospital Owerri, Imo State. *Corresponding author: Olua Kingsley Nnamdi Department Of Public Health Faculty of Health Sciences, Imo State University, Owerri. INTRODUCTION Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is acknowledged as a significant global public health issue due to its severe detrimental impacts on the physical, psychological, social, and economic health of women [1]. IPV impacts women of all ages, socio-economic statuses, and cultural origins, occurring in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It is a significant cause of illness and has been recorded as the third highest cause of mortality among women of reproductive age [2]. The rising incidence of IPV has led to heightened lobbying for regular screening in healthcare environments, thereby imposing increasing accountability on health professionals for the rapid identification, documentation, and management of IPV cases. However, a significant obstacle to effective detection is the exceedingly low rate of disclosure among women, especially in sub-Saharan Africa. Research repeatedly indicates that women infrequently report intimate partner violence (IPV) to authorities, including law enforcement, healthcare professionals, or civil society organisations [3]. People don't tell anyone about abuse for a number of reasons, including as not trusting the authorities, being afraid of getting hurt, respecting their husbands or family rules, being financially dependent on abusive partners, and worrying about the safety and health of their children. To create effective interventions that can improve identification, support, and prevention, it is important to know what causes IPV disclosure and how abuse happens. The United Nations says that violence against women is "any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual or mental harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts of coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private." The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines IPV as actions by a current or former partner that cause physical, sexual, or psychological harm. This includes physical Abstract This study investigated Intimate Partner Violence among Traders in Markets in Imo State: Prevalence, Patterns, and Determinants. The study was directed by four research enquiries. The study utilised a descriptive survey design. The sample consisted of 600 respondents chosen from the entire population by simple random sampling. We employed a structured questionnaire to get the data. The instrument's reliability coefficient was 0.7, determined by the test-retest procedure. The research issues were addressed by frequency counts and percentages. The main results are that most participants (90.7%) were aware of intimate partner relationships, that IPV leads to physical harm and injury (78.7%), and that IPV mostly happens in marriage (82.3%). The prevalence of IPV is 66.2%, and the most common types of IPV are verbal abuse (69.0%) and physical abuse (62.5%). Some of the characteristics that affect IPV are the age of the couple when they got married, their religion, their tribe, their spouse's job, and the woman's level of education, among others. Based on the data, conclusions were made and a recommendation for policy was made to make sure that all cases of IPV are. Keywords: intimate partner, violence, female traders,markets, prevalence, imo state. Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 96 aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse, and controlling behaviours. [4] The United States Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also defines IPV as physical, sexual, or psychological injury inflicted by a current or former partner, happening in both heterosexual and same-sex couples, and not necessarily necessitating sexual interaction. The CDC further defines IPV as a spectrum that includes both one-time acts of violence and long-term, severe abuse. [5] The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS, USA) defines intimate partner violence (IPV) as a pattern of behaviours in which one spouse misuses power and control over the other in an intimate relationship. IPV can happen in relationships between people of different genders or the same gender, and it can have serious effects on people, kids, families, and even communities. Physical, emotional, sexual, and psychic violence are all types of IPV. Psychological abuse can include threats, property damage, intimidation, harassment, and financial abuse. The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary says that "intimate" means having a close relationship. This means that intimate partners are people who are in a close personal relationship. In Nigeria, violence against women in the home is often seen as a private matter, which protects the people who do it from being judged by society. Cultural standards often perpetuate shame on victims instead of denouncing offenders [7]. As a result, IPV is still common and not reported enough. In underdeveloped nations, the rates of prevalence are usually greater (lifetime prevalence 11–52%; yearly prevalence 4– 29%) than in industrialised countries, where the rates are lower (lifetime prevalence 11%–16%) [8]. Worldwide, the prevalence varies from 10% to 69%, with at least one in three women thought to have experienced physical violence, sexual coercion, or other forms of abuse throughout their lives [9]. In a multi-country study by the WHO, 6% to 69% of women said they had been sexually abused by a partner at some point in their lives. Most countries reported numbers between 10% and 50%. In Africa, the prevalence of physical intimate partner violence (IPV) varies from 13% in Zimbabwe to 45% in Ethiopia, substantially influenced by cultural norms that allow wife-beating [10]. In Nigeria, domestic violence is still very common. The CLEEN Foundation revealed that one in three Nigerians said they had been victims of domestic violence [11]. The 2018 Nigeria Demographic and Health Survey (NDHS) found that 60.8% of the 2,501 women surveyed in South-East Nigeria said they had been physically abused, while 11.8% said they had been sexually abused. In Imo State, 54.1% reported physical intimate partner violence (IPV), and 15.3% reported sexual IPV [12]. This study aims to enhance policy formulation to address IPV at community, state, and national levels. It also wants to teach people in the community about IPV tendencies and make them more aware of them. The study specifically evaluates the awareness, knowledge, and attitudes of women regarding intimate partner violence (IPV); ascertains the frequency and patterns of IPV among female traders in designated markets in Imo State; and finds characteristics correlated with IPV among the participants. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Design This study employed a cross-sectional descriptive design to assess IPV among female traders in intimate relationships in selected markets in Imo State. Area of Study The study was conducted in markets across the three geopolitical zones of Imo State—Owerri, Orlu and Okigwe. Selected markets included Imo International Modern Market (Naze-Nekede, Owerri), Orlu International Market and Eke Okigwe International Market. Imo State, located in southeastern Nigeria, was created in 1976 from the former East-Central State. It is bounded by Abia State to the west, Anambra State to the north, Rivers State to the south and Enugu State to the east. The State lies between latitudes 4°45′N and 7°15′N and longitudes 6°50′E and 7°25′E, covering approximately 5,100 km². Major towns include Owerri (the capital), Orlu, Okigwe, Isu, Oguta, Akokwa, Mbaise and Ngor-Okpala. The population is estimated at 4.8 million, with a density ranging from 230 to 1,400 people per square kilometer. Imo State experiences heavy seasonal rainfall from March to October, with peak humidity of about 90%. Temperatures are highest between January and March. The State contains natural resources such as crude oil, natural gas, zinc, lead and commercially important forest products including iroko, mahogany, bamboo, rubber and oil palm. However, population pressure and over-farming have contributed to deforestation and severe soil erosion. Study Population The study population consisted of female traders in selected markets across the three geopolitical zones of Imo State. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Inclusion: Female traders in selected markets who were currently in intimate relationships. Exclusion: Male traders, visitors, and buyers were excluded regardless of occupation. Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 97 Sample Size Determination Sample size was calculated using the Cochrane formula for populations greater than 10,000: n=Z2P(1−P)d2n = \frac{Z^2 P(1-P)}{d^2}n=d2Z2P(1−P) Where: Z=1.96Z = 1.96Z=1.96 (95% confidence level) P=0.566P = 0.566P=0.566 (prevalence of IPV from previous study) Q=1−P=0.434Q = 1 - P = 0.434Q=1−P=0.434 d=0.05d = 0.05d=0.05 n=(1.96)2×0.566×0.434/0.052=377n=(1.96)^2\times0.566\times 0.434 / 0.05^2 = 377n=(1.96)2×0.566×0.434/0.052=377 Assuming a 59.2% attrition rate: 0.592×377=2230.592 \times 377 = 2230.592×377=223 Total sample size: 377+223=600377 + 223 = 600377+223=600 Sampling Technique A multistage sampling technique was used: Stage 1: Markets were stratified by zone (Owerri, Orlu, Okigwe). Stage 2: Two markets per zone were selected using simple random sampling by balloting. Stage 3: Market sections/lines were selected using simple random sampling. Validity of the Instrument Face and content validity were ensured through expert review by the research supervisor, who assessed the questionnaire for relevance, clarity and adequacy before finalization. Reliability of the Instrument Reliability was established using the test-retest method. Fifteen pupils from Community Primary School, Orlu LGA, were randomly selected and administered the questionnaire twice within a 10-day interval. A reliability coefficient of 0.7 was obtained, indicating good internal consistency. Data Collection An advocacy visit was conducted to market leaders to obtain permission. Data were collected using semi-structured, interviewer-administered questionnaires. The instrument was pretested before use. The questionnaire comprised: Section A: Socio-demographic/household characteristics Section B: Awareness and knowledge of IPV Section C: Prevalence and experiences of IPV Statistical Analysis Data were cleaned manually, validated and analyzed using Microsoft Excel. Results were summarized using frequencies, tables and descriptive statistics. RESULTS A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed in markets in Imo State and analyzed giving a response rate of 100%. TABLE 4.1: SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS Variables Owerri (%) n=200 Orlu (%) n=200 Okigwe (%) n=200 Total (%) n=600 AGE GROUP (YRS) <20 20-29 30-39 40-49 28(14.0) 89(44 5) 49(245) 20(100) 14(7.0) 200(100) 25(12.5) 70(35.0) 75(37S) 20(10.0) 10(5.0) 200(100) 23(11.5) 86(43,0) 64132 0) 21(10.5) 6(3.0) 200(100) 76(12.7) 245(40.8) 188(31.3) 61(10.2) 30(5.0) 600(100) Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 98 > 50 Total Mean age = 28±2 RELIGION Catholic Pentecostal Orthodox Traditional Muslim Total . 75 (37 5) 73(36.5) 41(20 5) 8(4) 3(1.5) 200(100) 80(40.0) 10(20 0) 67(33.5) 13(6.5) 0(0) 200 (100) 101(50.5) 60(30.0) 32(16.0) 4(2.0) 3(1.5) 200 (100) 256(42 7) 173(28.8) 140(23 3) 25(4.2) 6(1.0) 600(100) ... TRIBE Igbo Hausa Total 192(96.0) 8(4.0) 200(100) 200(100) 0(0) 200(100) 200(100) 0(0) 200(100) 592(98.7) 8(1.3) 600(100) OCCUPATION OP SPOUSE Trader 88(44,0) 70(35.0) 55(27.5) 213(35.5) Artisan 10(5.0) 74(37.0) 55(27.5) 139(23.2) Professional 30(13.0) 20(10 0) 15(17.5) 85(14.2) Student 16(8.0) 4(2.0) 44(22) 64(10.7) Civil servant 21(10.5) 10(5.0) 25(12.5) 56(9.3) Unemployed 26(13.0) 2(1.0) 21(10.5) 49(8.2) Farmer 9(4.5) 20(10.0) 12(6.0) 41(6.8) Total 200(100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) MARITAL STATUS Married 120(60 0) 87(43 5) 94(47.0) 301(50.2) Single 49(24 5) 66(33 0) 85(42.5) 200(33.3) Separated 14(7 0) 25(12 5) 8(4.0) 47(7.8) Divorced 4(2.0) 15(7.5) 5(2.5) 24(4.0) Widowed 6(3.0) 5(2.51 4(2.0) 15(2.5) Cohabiting 7(3.5) 2(1.0) 4(2.0) 13(2.2) Total 2001100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) AGE IN RELATIONSHIP (YRS) <1 1-5 0-10 >10 Total 17(8.5) 95(47.5) 58(29.0) 30(15.0) 200(100) 15(7.5) 115(57.5) 56(28.0) 14(7.0) 200(100) 32(16.0) 106(53) 34(17.0) 28(14.0) 200(100) 64(10 7) 87(14.5) 58(9.7) 34(9.5) 600(100) Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 99 TYPE OF RELATIONSHIP Monogamous 141(70.5) 100(50.0) 91(45.5) 332(55.3) Single partner Relationship 53(26,5) 75(37.5) 85(42.5) 213(35.5) Polygamous 5(2.5) 25(12.5) 20(10.0) 50(8.3) Multiple partner Relationship 1(0.5) 0(0) 4(2.0) 5(0.8) Total 200(100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) HOW MUCH EARNED PER MONTT1 (₦) <10.000 71(35.5) 37(18 5) 55(27.5) 163(27.2) 10,000-19,000 40(20.0) 70(35 0) 36(18.0) 146(24.3) 20.000-29.000 21(10.5) 35(l7.5i 33(10.5) 89(14.8) 30,000-39.000 45(22.5) 18(9.0) 24(12.0) 87(14.5) 40,000-49.000 12(6.0) 20(10.0) 26(13.0) 58(9.7) >50,000 11(5.5) 20(10.0) 26(13.0) 34(9.5) Total 200(10(1) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF WOMAN Secondary education Ternary education primary education None total 89(44,5) 60(30.0) 0(16.5) 18(9.0) 200(100) 125(62.5) 56(38.0) 18(9.0) 1(0.5) 200(100) 68(34.U) 101(50.5) 19(9.5) 12(6.0) 200(100) 282(47.0) 217(36.1) 70(11.7) 31(5.2) 600(100) EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF SPOUSE Tertiary education 06(33.U) 100(49.0) 98(49.0) 204(44.0) Secondary education >9(39.5) 60(30.0) 40(20.0) 179(29 8) None ) 0(15.0) 20(10.0) 39(19.5) 89(14 8) Primary education 25(12.5) 20(10.0) 23(11.5) 68(11 3) Total 200(100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION Flat 49(24.5) 80(40.0) 58(29.0) 187(31.2) Two rooms apartment 74(37.0) 60(30.0) 38(19.0) 172(28.7) One room apartment 46(23.0) 18(9.0) 45(22J) 109(18.2) Bungalow 16(8.0) 10(5.0) 24(12.0) 50(8.3) Share flats 8(4.0) 15(7.5) 20(10.0) 43(7.2) Batcher 7(5 5) 17(8.5) I4(7.0) 38(6.3) Others 0(0) (1(0) 1(0.5) 1(0.1) Total 200(100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) Table 4.1 shows the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondents. The mean age of the respondents in the study was found to be 28±2 (Owerri 28+2, Orlu 28±2, Okigwe 28±3) with majority of the respondents in all markets found within 20-29 years age group, 40.8% (Owerri 44.5%, Orlu 35%, Okigwe 43%). Generally, there were more Catholics, 42.7%, followed by Pentecostals, 28.8%. Majority of the respondents in all markets were Ibos, 98.7% (Owerri 96%, Orlu 100%, Okigwe 100%). Major occupation of the spouse of most of our respondents is trading, 35.5%, followed by artisans 23.1%. Among our respondents, 50.2% were married, 33.3% single, 7.8% were separated. Majority of the respondents have been in a relationship for 1-5 years, 52.6% (Owerri 47.5%, Orlu 57.5%, Okigwe 53%). Majority were in a monogamous relationship, 55.2% (Owerri 70.4%, Orlu 50%, Okigwe 45.5%). Most of the respondents earned less than N10,000, 27.2% (Owerri 35.5%, Orlu 18.5%, Okigwe 27.5%) with highest educational attainment of secondary Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 100 education 47% (Owerri 44.5%, Orlu 62.5%, Okigwe 34%). For their spouse, highest educational attainment is tertiary education, 44%, followed by secondary education, 29.8%. Most of the respondents live in a flat, 31.2%, followed by two rooms apartment, 28.7%, and one room apartment, 18.2%. TABLE 4.2: AWARENESS AND KNOWLEDGE ABOUT 1PV AMONG RESPONDENTS VARIABLES OWERR1(%) ( n = 600) ORLU(%) (n= 600) O K 1 G W E (%) ( n = 600) T O T A L (%) (n= 600) HAVE YOU HEARD OF IP V Yes 168(84) 181(90.5) 195(97.5) 544(90 7) No 32(16) 91(45.5) 5(2.5) 56(9.3) Total 200(100) 200(100) 200(100) 600(100) SOURCES O F INFORMATION ABOUT I PV ( n = 544) ( n = 1 6 8 ) ( n = 1 8 1 ) ( n = 1 9 5 ) ( n = 5 4 4 ) Friends/Relatives//Neighbors 135(80.4) 126(69.6) 85(43.6) 346(32.3) Radio 137(81.5) 135(71.6) 68(34.9) 140(61 2) M a r k e t 95(56.5) 145(80.1) 26(13.3) 266(47.9) Television 92(54 8) 85(46.9) 68(34.9) 245(44 1) August meeting 69(41.1) 50(27.6) 35(17.9) 154(27.7) News letter/Magazine 64(38.1) 47(25 9) 39(20.0) 150(27.0) Internet/social media 61(36.3) 25(138) 48(24.6) 134(24.1] Books 44(26.2) 31(17.1) 43(22.1) 118(21.2) Posters and Billboards 40(23.4) 25(13.8) 20(10.3) 85(15 3) Seminar /Workshop 4205.0) 5(2.8) 22(11.3) 69(12.4) Health Personnel /Gov. Agencies /Gov. AaAAgencies1 Icrilth Pcfgouncl/Gov Agencies 17(10.1) 11(6.1) 5(2.6) 33(5 9) NGO 13(7.7) 15(8.3) 4(2.1) 32(5 8) TYPE OFIPV KNOWN Physical abuse Sexual abuse Verbal abuse Emotional abuse Financial abuse Psychological abuse Spiritual abuse 164(98.4) 160(96.0) 112(67 2) 114(68.4) 104(62.4) 47(28 2) 46(27.6) 150(82.5) 80(44.0) 85(46.8) 75(14.3) 47(25.9) 10(5.5) 20(11.0) 117(59.7) 111(56.6) 69(35.2) 67(4.1) S 8(29.6) 41(20.9) 19(9.7) 431(77.6) 351(63.2) 266(47.6) 256(46.1) 209(37.6) 98(17.6) 85(15.3) CONSEQUENCES OF IPV KNOWN (n =544) (N = 168) (n = 181) (n= 195) (n =544) Injury and physical harm 160(96 0) 150(82.5) 127(64.8) 437(78 T) Spontaneous abortion 122(73.2) 85(46.8) 63(32.1) 270(48.6) Sexual reproductive confliction 95(57.0) 90(49.5) 69(352) 254(45.7) Mental Problem and Suicide 94(56.4) 85(46 8) 66(33.7) 245(44.1) Unwarned Pregnancy 126(75.6) 50(27.5) 67(34.2) 243(43 7) Homicide and other Mortality 100(60.0) 9U(49.5) 32(16.3) 222(400) Risk of Sexually transmitted 61(36.6) 75(41.3) 60(30.61 196(3521) disease Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 101 Table 4.2 shows the awareness and knowledge of respondents about IPV 90.7% of the respondents have heard of IPV with majority of the source being from friends/relatives/neighbors 62.3%, followed by radio 61.2%, followed by market 47.9% and television 44.1%. About 78.7% of the respondents believe that physical harm and injury are consequences of IPV, while 48.6% believe that spontaneous abortion is a consequence of IPV. 62.6% of the respondents believe that low level of education can cause IPV, 59.2% attributes IPV to alcohol abuse while 59.4% attributes it to young age. Majority of the respondents 82.3% believe that IPV occurs most in marital relationship, 70.6% believe it occurs in boyfriend/girlfriend relationship. 67.7% believe it occurs in couples living together without marriage. TABLE 4.3: PREVALENCE, PATTERN AND EXPERIENCE OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE HAVE YOU SUFFERED AN ABUSE IN YOUR CURRENT RELATIONSHIP Yes No Total 87(43.5) 113(56) 200 (100) 155(77 5) 45(22.5) 200(100) 155(77.5) 45(22.5) 200(100) 397(66,1) 203(33.8) 600(100) IF YES, WHAI TY PE OF ABUSE HAVE YOU SUFFERED (n= 397) (n = 87) (n =155) (n= 155) (u = 397) Emotional/Psychological abuse 18(20.7) 5(3.4) 23(15.0) 46(11.5) Verbal abuse 61(70.2) 115(74 8) 100(65.0) 276(69.0) Sexual abuse 15(173) 40(26.0) 93(60.5) 148(37.0) Physical ubu.se 55(63.3) 105(68.3) 90(85.5) 250(62.5) Financial abuse 29(33.4) 10(6.5) 29(7.3) 68(17.0) Spiritual abuse 2(2.3) 0(0) 1(0.65) 3(0.75) WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP ARE YOU ON Marital union 40(46.0) 100(60.1) 52(312) 192(48 0) Boy friend/Girl friend 25(28.7) 40(24.0) 67(40.2) 132(33 0) Girl friend only (Lesbianism) 4(4.6) 8(4.8) 16(9.6) 28(7.0) Engaged 7(8.1) 3(1.8) 18(10.8) 28(7.0) Man friend 11(12 7) 4(2.4) 2(1.2) 17(4.3) Total 87(100) 155(100) 155(100) 397(100) IF YOU HAVE SUFFERED VERBAL ABUSE, WIIAT TYPES (n276) Insults 50(80.0) 107(93.1) 65(65.0) 222(80.o) Name calling 55(88, U) 90(78 3) 32(32.0) 177(63.7) Blaming 35(56.0) 65(56.6) 14(34.0) 134(482) False accusation 28(44.8) 20(17.4) 27(27.0) 75(27.0) Raising causes 32(51.2) 25(21.8) 15(15.0) 72(25 9) Shouts at me 8(12 8) 33(28.7) 11(11.0) 52(18.7) Grumbles always 44(78.41 75(65.3) 45(45.0) 169(60.8) IF YOU HAVE SUFFERED PHYSICAL ABUSE. WHAT SORT IIAVE YOU EXPERIENCED (n = SS) (n = 105) (n = 90) (n= 250) Pushing or sharing causing no injury 23(45.5) 90(85.5) 38(48.2) 153(61 2) Slapping or pushing causing no injury 42(76.4) 40(30.0) 46(31.1) 128(51 2) Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 102 Hitting 32(58.2) 70(66.5) 34(37 7) 127(50.8) Pulling your hair 18(32.8) 55(53.3) 20(22.2) 93(37.2) Attempted strangulation 7(12.7) 28(26.6) 12(133) 79(31.6) Pushing or sharing causing Injury 20(36.4) 40(38.0) 19(21.1) 66(26 4) Hilling your head 2(3 6) 35(33J) 13(14.4) 50(20 0) Kicking 14(25 5) 37(352) 15(16,7) 47(18 8) Burning you 2(3.6) 10(95) 3(3.3) 15(16.0) WHAT PART OF YOUR BODY WAS TARGETED (n = 250) Head Trunk Arms and Hand Legs and feet Genitalia (n = 55) 16(65,5) 16(29.1) 32(58.2) 20(36.4) l(1.8) (n = 105) 95(90.3) 71(67.5) 25(23 8) 10(9.5) 22(20 9) (n = 90) 52(57.7) 13(14.4) 37(41.1) 19(21.1) 13(3.3) (n = 250) 183(71.2) 100(40,0) 94(37 6) 49(19.6) 36(14.4) WHAT SORTS OF INJURY (n = 250) (n = 55) (n= 105) (n = 90) (n = 250) No injury 11(56.4) 80(32 0) 46(31.1) 157(62.8) Bruising or Scratching requiring no medical intention 12(21 8) 65(36 0) 33(36.6) 110(44.0) Cuts or gushes not requiring medical attention 15(27.3) 40(16.0) 16(17.8) 71(28.4) Cuts or gusto not requiring no Medical attention 7(12.7) 7(2.8) 6(6.7) 20(8.0) Broken Bone 1(18) 0(0) 11(12.2) 12(4 8) Bum or scald 2(3 6) 1(0.4) 8(8 9) 11(4 4) Injuries to genital areas 0(0) 0(0) 1(1.1) 1(0.4) HOW SOON AFTER STARTING RELATIONSHIP DID THE FIRST PHYSICAL ASSAULT TAKE PLACE (n =55) (n = 105) (n = 90) (n 200) Alter a year 45(81.9) 40(38.0) 30(33.3) 115(46.0) After u month 13(23.7) 32(30.4) 31(34.4) 76(30.4) After a week 4(7.2) 26(24.7) 24(26.6) 54(2I 6) After a day 1(l.8) 15(14.3) 12(13.3) 28(11.2) Total 55(100) 105(100) 90(100) 200(100) HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU BEEN PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED Many times Twice Thrice Once Total (n = 55) 21(38.2} 21(38.2) 1(8) 12(21.8) 55(100) (n = 105) 50(47.5) 20(19.0) 23(21.9) 12(11.4) 105(100) (n - 90) 42(46.u) 29(32.2) 7(7.8) 1203.3) 90(100) (n - 250) 113(45.3) 70(28.0) 3102.2) 36(14.4) 250(100) HAVE THE PHYSICAL ASSAULTS INCREASED, STAYED THE SAME OR DECREASED DURING YOUR RELATIONSHIP n=55) n = 105) (n = 90) (n = 250) Decreased 9(16.4) 7(6.7) 11(12.2) 27(10.8) Stayed the same 4(7.3) 41(39.0) 12(1.U) 57(22.0) Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 103 HAVE YOU EVER TRIED DEFENDING YOURSELF FROM A PHYSICAL ASSAULTS (n = 250) Yes No Total (n = 55) 40(72.8) 15(27.3) 55(100) (a = 105) 70(66.5) 35(27.3) 105(100) (11= 90) 75(83.3) 15(33.3) 90(100) (n = 250) 185(34.0) 65(26.0) 250(100) WHAT SORT OF SEXUAL ABUSE HAVE YOU EXPERIENCED (n = 148) (n = 15) (n = 40) (n * 93) (n= 148) Forced sex when ill Forced sex when ill 11(73.4) 10(25.0) 40(43.2) 61(413) RapeIncomplete 7(46 7) 10(25.0) 25(27.0) 42(28.6) Rape – Complete 6(40.U) 25(62.5) 30(324) 61(41.6) Calling you sexual derogatory names 11 (73.4) 5(12.5) 25(27.0) 41(27.9) Excessive sexual jealousy 14(934) 2(5.0) 23(24.8) 39(26.5) Forced sexual act alter physical assault 9(60.0) 15(37.5) 20(21.6) 44(29 9) Forced to watch pornographic 4(26.7) 10(25 0) 15(16.2) 29(19.7) Withholding sex 8(53.4) 0(0) 19(20.5) 27(18.4) Making sex conditional 7(46.7) 0(0) 18(19.4) 25(17,0) Forced sexual act excluding penetration 7(46.7) 5(12.5) 10(10.8) 22(14,9) Having sexual euphuist photos 2(13.3) 5(12.5) 14(15.1) 21(14.3) Criticizing you sexually 13(86 7) 1(2.5) 6(6.5) 20(13.6) Forced prostitution 1(6.7) 2(5.0) 16(27.0) 19(12.9) Rape using an object 0(0) 1(2.5) 10(10.8) 11(73) Anal rape (buggery) 2(13.3) 0(0) 3(32) 5(3-4) IF YOU HAVE BEEN RAPED, DID YOUR ABUSER USE; (n = 103) Coercion Only enough force Violence Weapon (n =13) 2(15 4) 6(46.1) 4(30.8) 1(7.7) (n = 35) 20(57.2) 8(22.9) 3(8.6) 4(11.4) (n=55) 19(34 6) 15(273) 15(27.3) 6(10.9) (n =103) 41(39.8) 29(28.1) 22(21.3) 11(10,7) HOW MANY TIMES WERE YOU SEXUALLY ABUSED BEFORE TELLING SOMEONE, (n = I48) (n = 15) (n = 40) (n = 93) (n = 148) Once 7(46.7) 15(37 5) 36(38.9) 58(39,4 Twice 4(26.7)) 5(12.5) 28(30.2) 37(25.2) Thrice 4(26.7) 20(5.0) 29(29.3) 53(39.0) Total 15(100) 40(100) 93(100) 148(100) Only been assaulted once 21(38.2) 25(23.8) 25(27.8) 71(28.0) Increased 15(27.3) 20(19.0) 38(42.2) 73(29.2) Not sure 6(10 9) 12(11.4) 4(4.4) 22(8.8) Total 55000) 105(100) 90000) 250(100) HOW DID THE PHYSICAL ABUSE START (n= 250) (n = 55) (n = 105) (n-90) (n=250) When we moved in together 21(38.2) ,10(2K.5) 48(53.3) 90(39.6) None of the above 21(38.2) 34(32.3) 27(30.0) 82(32 8) When l said I was leaving 12(21.8) 35(33.3) 1203 3) 59(23.6) After a yarn 1(1-8) 6(5.7) 3(3.3) 10(4.0) 1 Total 55(100) 105(100) 90(100) 2501100) Global J Res Med Sci. 2025; 5(6), 95-110 @ 2025 | PUBLISHED BY GJR PUBLICATION, INDIA 110 REFERENCE 1. Avanigadda, D. B., & Kulasekaran, R. A. (2021). Associations between intimate partner violence and pregnancy complications: A study from India. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 28(1), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_256_20 2. Stewart, D. E., Cummings, S. R., Tchabo, K., Lofters, A., & Kingston, D. (2023). Maternal and neonatal outcomes associated with intimate partner violence during pregnancy: A retrospective cohort in Australia. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 130(4), 567–575. 3. Walby, S., & Towers, J. (2020). Measuring violence to end violence: Mainstreaming gender in violence research. Feminist Review, 124(1), 21–43. 4. Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y. T., García-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G., & Lim, S. (2020). Global patterns of intimate partner violence: A reanalysis of national prevalence estimates. The Lancet Global Health, 8(4), e495–e507. 5. Gebremeskel, G. G., Gebrewahd, G. T., & Tadesse, D. B. (2024). Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and risk of low birth weight and preterm birth in Northern Ethiopia: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 24, Article 123. 6. Guo, M., Wan, X., Wang, H., Wang, C., Tousey-Pfarrer, N., Liu, M., … Zhang, W. (2023). Associations between intimate partner violence and adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 20(5), e1004332. 7. Homer, C. S. E., Doran, E., Foureur, M., & Hill, P. (2021). Intimate partner violence and its health impacts on women: A systematic review of evidence from lowand middle-income countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18115790 8. Sabri, Y. (2021). Depression and post-traumatic stress disorder in females exposed to intimate partner violence. Middle East Current Psychiatry, 28, Article 85. 9. Iwuagwu, T. E., Kalu, M. O., Ngwoke, S. O. R., Yohanna, W., Umar, I., Iwuagwu, V. M., & Ejimonu, N. C. (2024). Spatio-temporal patterns of intimate partner violence victimization and preventive measures among married persons in Imo State, South East Nigeria. Journal of Home Economics Research, 31(2), 1–15. 10. Edwards, K. M., Rodriguez, D., & Benson, K. (2021). The psychological impact of intimate partner violence: Substance use as a coping strategy. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 50(6), 3569–3580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508021-01957-8 11. Okorie, C. O., Bassey, P. E., Nwachuku, N. S., & Ndep, A. O. (2021). Perceived determinants of domestic violence and the strategies for its prevention in Orlu Local Government Area of Imo State, South East Nigeria: A crosssectional questionnaire-based study. Emerging Trends in Disease and Health Research, 1, 112–129. 12. Sardinha, L., Maheu-Giroux, M., Stöckl, H., Meyer, S. R., & García-Moreno, C. (2022). Global, regional, and national prevalence estimates of physical or sexual intimate partner violence against women. The Lancet, 399(10327), 803–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02664-7 13. Eze, J., Ogbuabor, C., & Okeke, T. (2020). Awareness and perception of intimate partner violence among female undergraduates in Southeast Nigeria. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 24(2), 112–122. 14. Gadd, D., Radcliffe, P., Gilchrist, G., Potts, L., & Johnson, M. (2023). Pathways between substance use and intimate partner abuse: A descriptive model. Journal of Family Violence, 38, 855–868. 15. Mbah, G. O., & Njoku, J. I. K. (2021). Factors influencing domestic violence and its mitigation strategies among rural farm households in Imo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Extension & Rural Development Studies, 8(1), 100–109. 16. Nwankwo, A., & Chukwu, J. (2022). Knowledge and sources of information about intimate partner violence among female tertiary students in Imo State, Nigeria. Journal of Interpersonal Violence Studies, 37(5), 1012–1027. 17. Okafor, P., Eze, U., & Ude, I. (2021). Prevalence and determinants of intimate partner violence among female students in tertiary institutions in Southeast Nigeria. BMC Women’s Health, 21, 320. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905021-01471-4 18. Simpson, J. A., & Rholes, W. S. (2020). Attachment theory and close relationships: A lifespan perspective. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.002 19. Muluneh, M. D., Alemu, T. F., Meazew, G. W., & Alemu, S. M. (2021). Educational inequality and the risk of intimate partner violence among women in sub-Saharan Africa: A multi-country analysis. BMC Public Health, 21, 345. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10387-y