Rural Disparity in Domestic Violence Prevalence and Access to Resources

TLDR

Intimate partner violence against women is a major health concern in the United States and worldwide, yet most research has focused on urban populations. This study aims to assess whether IPV prevalence, frequency, and severity differ by rurality and to examine geographic disparities in access to IPV resources. Researchers conducted a cross‑sectional clinic‑based survey of 1,478 women to measure one‑year IPV prevalence and mapped state intervention programs, estimating each participant’s distance to the nearest program using a ZIP‑code‑based algorithm. Women in small rural and isolated areas had the highest IPV prevalence (22.5% and 17.9% versus 15.5% urban), experienced more severe physical abuse, and lived on average three times farther from the nearest resource, with over a quarter of rural women more than 40 miles away, underscoring the need for expanded rural IPV services.

Abstract

Objective: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a significant health issue in the United States and worldwide. The majority of studies on IPV have been conducted in urban populations. The objectives of this study are to determine if prevalence, frequency, and severity of IPV differ by rurality and to identify variance in geographic access to IPV resources. Methods: A cross-sectional clinic-based survey of 1478 women was conducted to measure the 1-year prevalence of physical, sexual, and psychologic IPV. IPV intervention programs in the state were inventoried and mapped, and the distance to the closest program was estimated for each participant based on an innovative algorithm developed for use when only ZIP code location is available. Results: Women in small rural and isolated areas reported the highest prevalence of IPV (22.5% and 17.9%, respectively) compared to 15.5% for urban women. Rural women reported significantly higher severity of physical abuse than their urban counterparts. The mean distance to the nearest IPV resource was three times greater for rural women than for urban women, and rural IPV programs served more counties and had fewer on-site shelter services. Over 25% of women in small rural and isolated areas lived >40 miles from the closest program, compared with <1% of women living in urban areas. Conclusions: Rural women experience higher rates of IPV and greater frequency and severity of physical abuse yet live much farther away from available resources. More IPV resources and interventions targeting rural women are needed.