Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Experience of physical violence and mental health among young men and women: a population-based study in Sweden

BMC Public HealthBMC series ¿ open, inclusive and trusted201414:29

DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-29

Received: 16 May 2013

Accepted: 5 January 2014

Published: 11 January 2014

Abstract

Background

In Sweden mental ill-health has increased among the young, especially among young women. Our aim was to investigate the association between experience of physical violence during the past year and self rated psychological health among young men and women.

Methods

The study population consisted of men (n = 2,624) and women (n = 3,569) aged 18–34 years who participated in the 2008 public health survey study in Skåne. The survey was a cross-sectional stratified random sample postal questionnaire study with a 54.1% participation rate. Associations were investigated by logistic regression models.

Results

The prevalence of poor psychological health was 18.9% among men and 27.7% among women. One in ten men and one in twenty women had experienced physical violence during the past year. Most men were violated in public places, while women were most often violated at home. Women who had experienced violence during the past year showed more than doubled odds of poor psychological health, odds ratio (OR): 2.66 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.00, 3.53). Such an association could not be seen in men OR: 1.12 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.47). Adjustment for covariates (i.e. age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support and generalized trust in other people) did not change the association found among women.

Conclusion

Violated women, but not men, showed nearly doubled odds of poor psychological health after multiple adjustments. There was also a gender difference regarding location of violence. Awareness of gender differences regarding context and mental impact of violence may assist public health workers in reducing the consequences of violence and to design preventive strategies.

Keywords

Physical violence Psychological health Trust Epidemiology Sweden

Background

Exposure to violence is a public health issue with long term human and economic costs [1]. In the Swedish society there has been a marked increase of violence since the beginning of the 1980s according to crime statistics [1]. The risk of violence is highest among young persons (16–24 years), and higher among men than women [1]. Most violence experienced by men is perpetrated by other men [1, 2], primarily takes place in public spaces [1, 3, 4] and the perpetrator of a man is often unknown to the victim [1, 2, 5, 6]. Men are more often hospitalized due to assault injuries and more often die as a result of violence than women [1], but four to five times as many women as men die as a result of partner violence [1]. Most violence experienced by women is perpetrated by men, primarily occurs at home [1, 3] and the perpetrator is usually known to the woman [1, 2, 5, 7]. Women abused by a partner are often exposed to repeated violence [8] and domestic violence has been shown to have serious consequences on physical and mental health, both in a short and long perspective [1, 9]. Primarily due to costs of psychiatric treatment, male and female victims of violence have higher total healthcare costs than men and women not exposed to violence [10]. Still, many victims of violence have reported that they would have needed more health care [7, 11]. Studies have found associations between exposure to violence and social factors such as economic stress [11], ethnicity [3], socioeconomic status [3, 12], as well as psychosocial factors such as social support [3, 13, 14] and trust [3]. Furthermore, several studies have shown an association between alcohol risk consumption and exposure to violence [3, 6, 10, 15].

In Sweden poor self reported psychological health is most prevalent among young women. The prevalence of poor self reported psychological health has increased over the last decades in surveys, reflected by an increase in the incidence of depression, anxiety and self-harm among young men and women in psychiatric hospital care statistics [16]. Poor psychological health has been shown to be associated with economic stress [17, 18], ethnicity [17, 18], socioeconomic status [17], emotional and instrumental support [18], trust [1719] and alcohol risk consumption [20, 21]. There are some earlier population-based studies on adults’ experiences of physical violence and mental health measured as self reported psychological distress [2, 6, 7, 1114, 2224]. Five of these were conducted on both men and women [2, 6, 11, 22, 23] and five on women only [7, 1214, 24]. Three were conducted on students [2, 6, 23] and two researched a younger population up to 45 years of age [11, 22]. Three of these studies used the General Health Questionnaire 12 (GHQ-12) to evaluate psychological distress [6, 14, 23], while the others used a range of different instruments. GHQ-12 has the advantage of being an internationally well validated measure of psychological ill-health in the general population [25, 26]. To the best of our knowledge, there is no earlier study that has investigated the associations between experience of physical violence and self rated psychological health measured by GHQ-12 in relation to social factors (socioeconomic status, ethnicity, economic stress) and psychosocial factors (emotional and instrumental support, trust) and alcohol use, in the same study.

The aim of this study was to investigate the association between experience of physical violence during the past year and self rated psychological health in relation to the above-mentioned factors in both men and women. Furthermore, the present study was to explore the setting of violence.

Methods

Study population

The 2008 public health survey in Skåne in southern Sweden was a cross-sectional stratified random sample study. The primary purpose of this public health survey was to map out the health situation in the general population of Scania, Sweden, in the year 2008 [27]. A total of 28,198 persons aged 18–80 years answered the postal questionnaire, representing 54.1% of the net selection [27]. The present research study is a secondary study based on a subpopulation of those included in the public health survey, i.e. participants in the age interval 18–34 years, which included a total of 6,193 respondents (2,624 men and 3,569 women). The data from the stratified random sample study was weighted by various factors, e.g., age, sex and administration area through a weighting variable [27]. The differences between unweighted and weighted data were very small (data not shown). Ethical approval to conduct the research study was granted by the Ethical Committee at Lund University, Sweden (No. 2010/343).

Definitions

Dependent variable

Self reported psychological health (GHQ-12) included twelve items reflecting different aspects of psychological health, such as anxiety and depression, the ability to perform daily activities and the ability to cope with everyday problems during a time period of the last few weeks. Each item had four response categories, e.g. “Better than usual”, “Same as usual”. “Less than usual” and “Much less than usual”. Scoring was according to the GHQ method (0,0,1,1) instead of the Likert method (0,1,2,3) [28]. The answers to the 12 items were dichotomized into “good” or “poor” psychological health. If three or more of the twelve items denoted “poor” psychological health, the respondent’s general psychological health (GHQ-12) was defined as “poor”. This cut-off has been widely used for many years in Sweden and in many studies abroad [27, 29, 30]. The GHQ12- instrument is the shortest (other GHQ measures contain for instance 28 or 60 items), but has been shown to be a very robust measure of psychological health [25].

Independent variables

The age interval 18–34 years was analyzed in this study. Age adjustments in tables were conducted with age as a continuous variable within the age interval 18–34 years.

Born in Sweden/born in other Scandinavian countries/born in the rest of Europe/born outside Europe. The participants were categorized according to place of birth.

Socioeconomic status (SES) by occupation included the employed categories higher non-manual employees, medium level non-manual employees, low level non-manual employees, skilled manual workers and unskilled manual workers as well as self-employed/farmers. The groups outside the workforce comprised the unemployed, the early retired (for health or early retirement entitlement in the employment contract reasons), students, and persons on long term sick leave. Furthermore, there was the group unclassified.

Alcohol risk consumption was estimated by an index of three questions: how often you drink alcohol, how much alcohol you typically drink and how often you drink a large amount on one occasion. The index can take a point value between 0 and 12. Alcohol risk consumption was defined as 8–12 points for men and 6–12 points for women. Additionally, those who had been intoxicated 2–3 times a month or more often were defined as alcohol risk consumers. These questions have been used by the National Public Health Reports of Sweden to define alcohol risk consumption [31].

Emotional support was assessed with the question “Do you feel that you have one or several persons who can give you sufficient personal support to handle the stress and problems of life?”. The four alternative answers were: “Yes, I am absolutely certain to get such support”, “Yes, possibly”, “Not certain”, and “No”. The item was dichotomized, and the three latter alternatives were classified as low emotional support.

Instrumental support was assessed with the question “Can you get help from one or several persons in case of illness or practical problems (to borrow things, repair things, write a letter, get advice or information)”? This item had similar alternative answers as emotional support and was dichotomized correspondingly.

Economic stress was assessed with the item “How often during the past twelve months have you had problems paying your bills?” with the four alternative answers: “Never”, “Occasionally”, “Every second month” and “Every month”.

Generalized (horizontal) trust in other people was appraised by the item “Generally, you can trust other people” with the four alternative answers: “Do not agree at all”, “Do not agree”, “Agree”, and “Completely agree”. These alternatives were dichotomized with the two first alternatives indicating low trust and the two latter high trust. This item has been used with four optional answers in most previous investigations collapsing the alternatives in the same way [17, 32].

Experience of physical violence during the past year was assessed with the question: “Have you at any time during the past twelve months been exposed to physical violence?” with the alternatives “Yes” and “No”.

Location of physical violence during the past year was assessed with the supplementary question: “If yes, where did this occur? You may tick several options” with the alternative answers: “At work/at school”, “At home”, “In somebody else’s home/in the neighborhood”, “In a public place/at a venue/on a train, bus, subway” and “Somewhere else”.

Statistics

The prevalence (%) of poor self rated psychological health, age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support and trust were stratified by sex in the two groups who had, alternatively had not, experienced physical violence during the past year (Table 1). The odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR:s, 95% CI) of poor self rated psychological health were calculated in a bivariate model stratified by sex and according to age, country of birth, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support, horizontal trust and experience of physical violence during the past year using logistic regression modeling (Table 2). Age-adjusted and multiple adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of poor self rated psychological health according to experience of physical violence during the past year were calculated for men and women using logistic regression modeling (Table 3). Adjustments were made for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk drinking, emotional support, instrumental support and trust. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 19.
Table 1

Characteristics (%) of men and women exposed (yes) and unexposed (no) to physical violence during the past year

 

Men

Women

 

Physical violence

Physical violence

 

Yes

No

Yes

No

Psychological health

    

Good

79.3

81.2

49.5

73.5

Poor

20.7

18.8

50.5

26.5

Age

    

18-24

68.7

38.8

54.5

40.3

25-34

31.3

61.2

45.5

59.7

Country of origin

    

Sweden

89.8

81.5

82.1

81.4

Other Nordic countries

1.1

2.4

0.9

2.4

The rest of Europe

2.7

9.1

7.5

8.1

Outside Europe

6.5

7.0

9.4

8.1

Socioeconomic status

    

Higher non-manual

4.5

9.0

1.4

7.3

Medium non-manual

2.5

12.0

9.1

15.1

Lower non-manual

4.5

4.7

8.7

8.4

Skilled manual

12.9

11.4

13.9

8.5

Unskilled manual

21.8

15.2

22.1

14.5

Self-employed/farmer

2.2

4.0

0.5

2.3

Early retired

0.3

0.4

1.4

0.5

Unemployed

10.4

6.0

11.1

6.4

Student

23.8

23.0

22.1

26.6

Unclassified

16.8

13.6

8.7

9.4

Long term sick leave

0.3

0.6

1.0

1.0

Economic stress

    

Never

64.2

74.1

48.1

65.2

Occasionally

26.8

18.1

28.1

24.7

Half the year

3.4

4.4

14.3

5.4

Every month

5.6

3.4

9.5

4.8

Alcohol risk consumption

    

No

46.5

71.1

59.0

79.6

Yes

53.5

28.9

41.0

20.4

Emotional support

    

High

62.0

68.2

48.8

75.2

Low

38.0

31.8

51.2

24.8

Instrumental support

    

High

73.9

79.5

68.2

80.4

Low

26.1

20.5

31.8

19.6

Trust (horizontal)

    

High

42.7

60.5

37.2

56.1

Low

57.3

39.5

62.8

43.9

Prevalences (%) of psychological health, age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support and trust among men and women who had/had not experienced physical violence during the past year. Men (n = 2,624), women (n = 3,569), and total (n = 6,193) aged 18–34 years. The public health survey in Skåne 2008.

Table 2

Bivariate analyses of sociodemographic factors, psychosocial factors, alcohol risk consumption, and exposure to physical violence in relation to poor self rated psychological health

 

Men

Women

 

%

OR (95% CI)

%

OR (95% CI)

Age

    

18-24

19.6

1.00

31.9

1.00

25-34

18.3

0.92 (0.78–1.09)

24.9

0.70 (0.61–0.81)

Country of origin

    

Sweden

18.1

1.00

27.2

1.00

Other Nordic countries

16.3

0.85 (0.47–1.53)

25.8

0.93 (0.59–1.47)

The rest of Europe

20.9

1.20 (0.91–1.60)

30.8

1.19 (0.93–1.52)

Outside Europe

26.3

1.62 (1.21–2.17)

30.9

1.20 (0.94–1.53)

Socioeconomic status

    

Higher non–manual

20.3

1.00

23.2

1.00

Medium non–manual

14.7

0.68 (0.46–1.00)

22.9

0.98 (0.70–1.38)

Lower non–manual

15.4

0.72 (0.44–1.18)

26.9

1.21 (0.84–1.74)

Skilled manual

12.1

0.54 (0.36–0.80)

22.6

0.96 (0.66–1.39)

Unskilled manual

14.2

0.65 (0.46–0.93)

27.2

1.24 (0.89–1.71)

Self–employed/farmer

13.5

0.61 (0.35–1.07)

27.2

1.23 (0.72–2.10)

Early retired

16.7

0.85 (0.20–3.69)

55.0

4.14 (1.66–10.37)

Unemployed

37.0

2.30 (1.56–3.38)

45.6

2.76 (1.92–3.97)

Student

21.4

1.06 (0.77–1.47)

28.7

1.33 (0.98–1.80)

Unclassified

21.1

1.05 (0.74–1.48)

23.5

1.02 (0.71–1.46)

Long term sick leave

45.5

3.11 (1.27–7.61)

74.4

9.28 (4.35–19.82)

Economic stress

    

Never

16.4

1.00

23.2

1.00

Occasionally

19.2

1.22 (0.98–1.51)

31.2

1.50 (1.28–1.77)

Half the year

38.4

3.19 (2.28–4.45)

43.8

2.60 (1.98–3.42)

Every month

42.7

3.80 (2.65–5.45)

49.5

3.28 (2.46–4.38)

Alcohol risk consumption

    

No

19.5

1.00

25.8

1.00

Yes

17.5

0.87 (0.73–1.04)

34.1

1.49 (1.27–1.75)

Emotional support

    

High

13.9

1.00

21.5

1.00

Low

29.2

2.55 (2.16–3.02)

45.4

3.03 (2.61–3.51)

Instrumental support

    

High

16.2

1.00

23.4

1.00

Low

29.0

2.10 (1.75–2.53)

45.0

2.68 (2.29–3.15)

Trust (horizontal)

    

High

15.0

1.00

21.1

1.00

Low

24.1

1.80 (1.52–2.12)

35.6

2.08 (1.81–2.39)

Experience of physical violence during the past year

    

No

18.8

1.00

26.5

1.00

Yes

20.7

1.13 (0.86–1.47)

50.5

2.81 (2.12–3.72)

Prevalences (%) and odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) in bivariate analyses of poor self rated psychological health according to age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support, trust and experience of physical violence during the past year. Men (n = 2,624) and women (n = 3,569) aged 18–34 years. The public health survey in Skåne 2008.

Table 3

Associations of exposure to physical violence and poor psychological health in multiple adjusted analyses

Men

    

Violence

OR (95% CI) a

OR (95% CI) b

OR (95% CI) c

OR (95% CI) d

No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yes

1.12 (0.85–1.47)

1.14 (0.86–1.49)

1.20 (0.91–1.58)

1.02 (0.76–1.36)

 

OR (95% CI) e

OR (95% CI) f

OR (95% CI) g

OR (95% CI) h

No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yes

1.06 (0.79–1.42)

1.00 (0.74–1.35)

1.00 (0.74–1.34)

1.00 (0.72–1.31)

Women

    

Violence

OR (95% CI) a

OR (95% CI) b

OR (95% CI) c

OR (95% CI) d

No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yes

2.66 (2.00–3.53)

2.66 (2.00–3.54)

2.73 (2.05–3.63)

2.41 (1.79–3.23)

 

OR (95% CI) e

OR (95% CI) f

OR (95% CI) g

OR (95% CI) h

No

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.00

Yes

2.29 (1.70–3.08)

1.85 (1.36–2.52)

1.83 (1.34–2.50)

1.70 (1.24–2.33)

aAdjusted for age.

bAdjusted for age and country of origin.

cAdjusted for age, country of origin, and socioeconomic status.

dAdjusted for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status and economic stress.

eAdjusted for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress and alcohol risk consumption.

fAdjusted for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption and emotional support.

gAdjusted for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support and instrumental support.

hAdjusted for age, country of origin, socioeconomic status, economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, emotional support, instrumental support and trust.

Age-adjusted and multiple adjusted odds ratios (OR, 95% CI) of poor self rated psychological health according to experience of physical violence during the past year. Men (n = 2,624) and women (n = 3,569) aged 18–34 years. The public health survey in Skåne 2008.

Results

In this study 223 men and 174 women reported experience of physical violence during the past year, which corresponds to a prevalence of 9.7% for men and 5.0% for women (data not shown).

Table 1 displays the prevalences of different variables in 18–34 year old men and women who had, alternatively had not, experienced physical violence during the past year. Men who had been violated were often younger (18–24 years), were born in Sweden, were unskilled manual workers or unemployed, had economic stress, alcohol risk consumption, lower emotional and instrumental support and lower generalized trust in other people. A similar pattern was seen for women apart from country of origin. Women who had experienced physical violence during the past year reported poor psychological health at much higher levels, 50.5% compared to 26.5% among women not violated. Such a difference could not be seen among men for whom the corresponding figures were 20.7% and 18.8%, respectively.

Table 2 displays the prevalences and odds ratios of poor self rated psychological health in bivariate analyses. Women 18–24 years had poorer psychological health than women 25–34 years. Analysis by age showed that young women 18–21 years had the highest prevalence of poor psychological health with a peak of more than 40%, twice the rate of men the same age (Figure 1). Men born outside Europe had significantly higher odds of poor psychological health compared to men born in Sweden, while this pattern was not significant for women. Socioeconomic status showed a strong association with psychological health with generally higher odds of poor psychological health among those outside the workforce. For example, unemployed men and women showed more than doubled odds of poor psychological health compared to non-manual employees in higher positions. The odds of poor psychological health were higher among those with economic stress. Alcohol risk consumption was associated with poor psychological health among women OR = 1.49 (95% CI: 1.27, 1.75), but not among men OR = 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73, 1.04). Furthermore, psychosocial factors showed strong associations with poor psychological health among both men and women. The odds of poor psychological health were higher among those with low emotional support, low instrumental support and low trust. While women who had experienced violence during the past year showed more than doubled odds of poor psychological health, such a pattern could not be seen in men.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-14-29/MediaObjects/12889_2013_Article_6166_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Prevalence of poor psychological health (GHQ-12) by age. Men (n= 2,624) and women (n= 3,569) aged 18-34 years. The public health survey in Skåne 2008.

Table 3 shows the associations between exposure to physical violence and poor psychological health. The results showed significantly higher odds ratios of poor self rated psychological health among women with experience of physical violence during the past year compared to women unexposed to such violence throughout the age- and multiple adjusted logistic regression analyses. For example, in the age-adjusted model the odds ratio of poor self rated psychological health among women with experience of physical violence compared to women with no such experience was 2.66 (95% CI: 2.00, 3.53). Identical analyses showed no such associations in men with an age-adjusted OR of 1.12 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.47).

Figure 2 displays the setting of the exposure to physical violence. Some participants had experienced physical violence several times and in different locations, so the percentages add up to more than 100%. Most men (61%) had been violated in a public place (including streets, venues and transportation by bus, train or subway). Most women had been violated at home (37.7%) or in a public place (32%). Stratifying by age showed that younger women (18–24 years) were most often violated in public places, while somewhat older women (25–34 years) were most often violated at home. Among men there was no age difference regarding location of violence (data not shown).
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2F1471-2458-14-29/MediaObjects/12889_2013_Article_6166_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

The setting of exposure to physical violence. Men (n= 223) and women (n= 174) aged 18-34 years exposed to physical violence during the past 12 months. The public health survey in Skåne 2008.

Discussion

The present study showed associations between experience of physical violence during the past year and self rated psychological health in women, but not men, aged 18–34 years. This is in accordance with results from some of the earlier population-based studies on psychological health and violence that included both men and women. A Danish study showed more than doubled odds of symptoms of anxiety and depression in women, but not men, who had been exposed to physical violence during the past year [22]. An Italian study of university students showed more than doubled odds of psychological distress in women, but not men, who had been exposed to a high degree of intimate partner violence (IPV) [23]. Some population studies have shown associations between violence and psychological distress in both men and women, but to a higher degree in women. A Swedish study of 17-year old students showed increased odds of psychological distress in girls and boys who had experienced physical violence during the past 12 months, OR: 2.68 for girls and OR: 1.90 for boys [2]. Another Swedish study on adults showed much higher odds of anxiety in women than men who had been exposed to physical violence or threats of violence during the past 12 months [11]. A Finnish study of university students showed that exposure to violence (life-time prevalence) was strongly associated with poor mental health in both men and women, with higher symptom levels in female victims [6]. Furthermore, population-based studies excluding men have shown significant associations between psychological distress and experience of violence in women [7, 1214, 24].

In consistency with earlier research we found strong associations between poor self rated psychological health and socioeconomic status (especially not being part of the workforce) and psychosocial factors among both men and women [17]. Furthermore, men of non-European origin reported poor psychological health more often than men born in Sweden. A similar but not significant pattern was seen among women. Earlier studies have shown that mental ill-health is more common among foreign-born compared to native-born Swedes, mainly due to poorer socio-economic living conditions [33].

In our study alcohol risk consumption was associated with poorer self rated psychological health among women but not among men. Studies have shown bi-directional relationships between high alcohol consumption and both anxiety disorders [20] and depression [21] among men and women. The paralleled increases of alcohol consumption and poor mental health in young people over the last 20 years, with a poorer development among women in both respects [16], may point to a connection.

Those who are socially and/or economically disadvantaged are much more likely to experience violence [3, 10]. This might in part be due to the fact that they are often restricted to live in neighborhoods with higher crime rates [34] and that problems with financial resources are linked to a range of negative outcomes including violence [3, 35]. The fact that socioeconomic status is associated with both violence and psychological health has been taken into account by adjusting for socioeconomic status as a confounder in the analysis. Alcohol is a risk factor for violence [15, 36], but neither a necessary nor sufficient cause [37, 38]. It plays a larger part in situational violence than in controlling violence in intimate relationships [39]. Being violated may cause serious damage to basic trust. In our study a higher proportion of men and women who had been violated reported low trust compared to men and women who had not been exposed to violence.

Our results showed that men were most often violated in public places including streets, venues, buses, trains and subways. Women were most often violated at home, although younger women (18–24 years) were also most often violated in public places. This could be a reflection of different life styles in the two age groups. In a Swedish study, foreign-born women 18–64 years reported twice as much exposure to physical violence in the home compared to Swedish-born women [40].

The severity of symptoms may be influenced by the victim-offender relationship [2, 6]. Violence against women often occurs in a private, isolated context including an intimate relationship to the perpetrator, while the perpetrator of men often is unknown. Physical abuse among women is often combined with sexual and/or emotional abuse, whereas physical abuse among men often occurs in isolation [5]. Women are less able to protect/defend themselves against perpetrators [41] and often have concerns on how to protect their children [42]. Furthermore, social and economic inequalities make it harder for women to leave an abusive partner [22]. A Swedish study showed that 22% of women aged 18–24 years had experienced some type of violence (physical, sexual or threats of violence) during the past year, and 85% worried about becoming victims of violence [38]. There might be some connection between the concurrent high prevalence of worrying about violence and the high prevalence of poor psychological health among young women in Sweden, as worrying is negatively related to psychological health [43].

The impact of violence on men’s health needs to be further explored. Abuse against men is highly prevalent in Sweden. A population-based study showed that 68% of Swedish men had experienced threats of violence and/or violence at some point during their lifetime and 14% during the past 12 months. The most common forms of violence were threatening or aggressive language and physical assaults, and many men had been victimized several times [4]. Victimization of men has been shown to be associated with health issues such as alcohol use problems [6, 23, 44]. It is possible that other measures than GHQ-12 might better capture psychological consequences of violence among men.

Strengths and limitations

The current study is subject to some limitations. Firstly, the study is cross-sectional. A cross-sectional design makes it formally hard to infer causality, although such studies may well form at least part of causal inferences. Secondly, we had only one question on physical violence and one on location, but none on frequency or relationship to the perpetrator. Thirdly, in our study 9.7% of the men and 5.0% of the women 18–34 years reported experience of physical violence during the past year. This is in line with 12% of the men and 6% of the women 16–24 years reported in The Swedish National Public Health Surveys statistics 2006–2008 [45], which used the same single question on physical violence. However, this is probably an underestimation. Studies with several detailed questions on physical violence have reported considerably higher figures; 28% of the men and 11% of the women 16–24 years in a Danish national health interview survey [22], and 25% of the boys and 15% of the girls in a Swedish study of 17 year old high school students [2]. Earlier studies have also stated that violence against women is heavily underreported [1, 8]. For example, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention has estimated that 75–80% of the cases of domestic violence go unreported [46].

We have explored the association between poor psychological health and violence, but of course there could be other factors contributing to emotional distress that we lack information on in this study (e.g., relationship problems, illness in the family, the demise of loved ones). The item we have used to measure generalized trust in other people is self rated and thus might be difficult to validate, but it has been used in many previous investigations [32]. Strengths of this study are the large population sample, the use of the well-validated GHQ-12 measure to assess psychological health and the use of a questionnaire to assess exposure to violence [47]. Although there are more complex GHQ-12 instruments (with for example 28 and 60 items) to measure psychological health, there is little difference in validity [26, 28]. Furthermore, the GHQ-12 measure, as well as the question used to assess experience of physical violence, has been validated by the National Institute of Public Health and by Statistics Sweden [29].

Conclusions

In this study women, but not men, aged 18–34 years, who had experienced physical violence during the past year showed more than doubled odds of poor psychological health. The association between experienced physical violence and poor psychological health found in women persisted, although attenuated, after adjustment for covariates. There was a gender difference regarding location of violence, as men were mostly violated in public places while women were most often violated at home. It is well known that domestic violence has serious consequences on physical and mental health, both in a short and long perspective. Mental ill-health and violence are both important public health issues and the impact of violence on mental health should be further explored among both genders. Awareness of gender differences regarding context and mental impact of violence may assist public health workers in reducing the consequences of violence and to design preventive strategies.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) [K2014-69X-22427-01-4], the Swedish Research Council Linnaeus Centre for Economic Demography [VR 79], the Swedish ALF Government [Grant Dnr M 2011/1816], the Swedish ALF Government [Grant Dnr M 2012/1789], and the Research Funds of the University Hospital in Southern Sweden.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Clinical Sciences, Social Medicine and Health Policy, CRC, Jan Waldenströms gata 35, Scania University Hospital, Lund University
(2)
Centre for Economic Demography, Lund University School of Economics and Management

References

  1. Leander K, Berlin M, Eriksson A, Gådin KG, Hensing G, Krantz G, Swahnberg K, Danielsson M: Violence: Health in Sweden: The National Public Health Report 2012. Chapter 12. Scand J Public Health. 2012, 40 (9): 229-254.View ArticlePubMed
  2. Landstedt E, Gillander Gådin K: Experiences of violence among adolescents: gender patterns in types, perpetrators and associated psychological distress. Int J Public Health. 2011, 56: 419-427. 10.1007/s00038-011-0258-4.View ArticlePubMed
  3. Stickley A, Carlson P: Factors associated with non-lethal violent victimization in Sweden in 2004–2007. Scand J Public Health. 2010, 38: 404-410. 10.1177/1403494810364560.View ArticlePubMed
  4. Soares JF, Luo J, Jablonska B, Sundin Ö: Men’s experiences of violence: extent, nature and ‘determinants’. Int J Soc Welf. 2007, 16: 269-277. 10.1111/j.1468-2397.2006.00461.x.View Article
  5. Danielsson I, Blom H, Nilses C, Heimer G, Högberg U: Gendered patterns of high violence exposure among Swedish youth. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2009, 88: 528-535. 10.1080/00016340902846056.View ArticlePubMed
  6. Björklund K, Häkkänen-Nyholm H, Huttunen T, Kunttu K: Violence victimization among Finnish university students: Prevalence, symptoms and healthcare usage. Soc Sci Med. 2010, 70: 1416-1422. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.015.View ArticlePubMed
  7. Plichta SB, Falik M: Prevalence of violence and its implications for women’s health. Women’s Health Issues. 2001, 11: 244-258. 10.1016/S1049-3867(01)00085-8.View ArticlePubMed
  8. Watts C, Zimmerman C: Violence against women: global scope and magnitude. Lancet. 2002, 359: 1232-1237. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08221-1.View ArticlePubMed
  9. Campbell JC: Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet. 2002, 359: 1331-1336. 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8.View ArticlePubMed
  10. Helweg-Larsen K, Sørensen J, Brønnum-Hansen H, Kruse M: Risk factors for violence exposure and attributable healthcare costs: results from the Danish national health interview surveys. Scand J Public Health. 2011, 39: 10-16. 10.1177/1403494810380774.View ArticlePubMed
  11. Danielsson I, Olofsson N, Gillander Gådin K: Våldets följder – en fråga om folkhälsa. Starkt samband mellan våld/hot och ohälsa hos både kvinnor och män. [The consequences of violence – a public health issue. Strong connection between violence/threat and illness in both women and men]. Läkartidningen. 2005, 102: 938-942. In SwedishPubMed
  12. Winnersjö R, Ponce de Leon A, Soares JF, Macassa G: Violence and self-reported health: does individual socioeconomic position matter?. J Inj Violence Res. 2012, 4: 87-95.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  13. Krantz G, Östergren PO: The association between violence victimisation and common symptoms in Swedish women. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000, 54: 815-821. 10.1136/jech.54.11.815.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  14. Vives-Cases C, Ruiz-Cantero MT, Escribà-Agüir V, Miralles JJ: The effect of intimate partner violence and other forms of violence against women on health. J Public Health. 2011, 33: 15-21. 10.1093/pubmed/fdq101.View Article
  15. Nilses C, Blom H, Heimer G, Danielsson I: 40 procent av gymnasieelever riskbrukar alkohol. Starkt samband med utsatthet för fysiskt eller sexuellt våld. [40 percent of high school pupils abuse alcohol: Strong connection with exposure to physical or sexual violence]. Läkartidningen. 2011, 108: 1556-1559. In SwedishPubMed
  16. The National Board of Health and Welfare, NIPH: Folkhälsan i Sverige. Årsrapport 2013. [Public health in Sweden, annual report 2013]. 2013, Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare], In Swedish
  17. Lindström M, Ali SM, Rosvall M: Socioeconomic status, labour market connection and self-rated psychological health: the role of social capital and economic stress. Scand J Public Health. 2012, 40: 51-60. 10.1177/1403494811421825.View ArticlePubMed
  18. Lindström M, Rosvall M: Marital status, social capital, economic stress and mental health: A population-based study. Soc Sci J. 2012, 49: 339-342. 10.1016/j.soscij.2012.03.004.View Article
  19. Giordano GN, Lindström M: Social capital and change in psychological health over time. Soc Sci Med. 2011, 72: 1219-1227. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.02.029.View ArticlePubMed
  20. Kushner MG, Abrams K, Borchardt C: The relationship between anxiety disorders and alcohol use disorders: a review of major perspectives and findings. Clin Psychol Rev. 2000, 20: 149-171. 10.1016/S0272-7358(99)00027-6.View ArticlePubMed
  21. Malmgren L, Ljungdahl S, Bremberg S: Psykisk ohälsa och alkoholkonsumtion - hur hänger det ihop? En systematisk kunskapsöversikt över sambanden och förslag till förebyggande insatser. [What are the associations between mental health and alcohol consumption? A systematic review and suggestions of preventive measures]. 2008, Östersund: Statens folkhälsoinstitut [The Swedish National Institute of Public Health], In Swedish
  22. Sundaram V, Helweg-Larsen K, Laursen B, Bjerregaard P: Physical violence, self rated health and morbidity: is gender significant for victimization?. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004, 58: 65-70. 10.1136/jech.58.1.65.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMed
  23. Romito P, Grassi M: Does violence affect one gender more than the other? The mental health impact of violence among male and female university students. Soc Sci Med. 2007, 65: 1222-1234. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.017.View ArticlePubMed
  24. Wijma K, Samelius L, Wingren G, Wijma B: The association between ill-health and abuse: A cross-sectional population based study. Scand J Psychol. 2007, 48: 567-575. 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2007.00553.x.View ArticlePubMed
  25. Goldberg DP, Gater R, Sartorius N, Ustun TB, Piccinelli M, Gureje O, Rutter C: The validity of two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care. Psychol Med. 1997, 27: 191-197. 10.1017/S0033291796004242.View ArticlePubMed
  26. McDowell I: Measuring health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. 2006, New York: Oxford University Press, Inc, 3View Article
  27. Hälsoförhållanden i Skåne. Folkhälsoenkät Skåne 2008. [Health in Skåne: The public health survey of Skåne 2008]. Edited by: Rosvall M, Grahn M, Modén B, Merlo J. 2008, Malmö: Region Skåne, In Swedish
  28. Goldberg DP, William P: A User’s Guide to the General Health Questionnaire. 1988, Windsor, United Kingdom: NFER-Nelson
  29. The Swedish National Institute of Public Health: Hälsa på lika villkor: Syfte och bakgrund till frågorna i nationella folkhälsoenkäten. [Quality review of the questions in Sweden’s national public health survey ”Health on equal terms”]. 2011, Östersund: Statens folkhälsoinstitut [The Swedish National Institute of Public Health], In Swedish
  30. Makowska Z, Merecz D, Móscicka A, Kolasa W: The validity of general health questionnaires, GHQ-12 and GHQ-28, in mental health studies of working people. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2002, 15: 353-362.PubMed
  31. Arbo C: Folkhälsorapport 2005. [Health in Sweden. The National Public Health Report 2005]. 2005, Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen [The National Board of Health and Welfare], In Swedish
  32. Putnam RD: Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. 2001, New York: Touchstone Books by Simon & Schuster
  33. Tingshög P: Migration, stress and mental ill health: Post-migration factors and experiences in the Swedish context, Phd Thesis. 2009, Linköping: Linköping University, Health and Society
  34. Lindström M, Lindström C, Moghaddassi M, Merlo J: Social capital and neo-materialist contextual determinants of sense of insecurity in the neigbourhood: A multilevel analysis in Southern Sweden. Health Place. 2006, 12: 479-489. 10.1016/j.healthplace.2005.08.001.View ArticlePubMed
  35. Korpi T, Nelson K, Stenberg SÅ: The accumulation of social problems 1974–2000. (Chapter 4) Int J Soc Welfare. 2007, 16 (s1): S91-S103.View Article
  36. World Health Organization: Alcohol and Interpersonal violence: Policy Briefing. 2005, http://​www.​euro.​who.​int/​_​_​data/​assets/​pdf_​file/​0004/​98806/​E87347.​pdf. 2014-01-09
  37. Leonard KE: Alcohol and intimate partner violence: when can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence?. Addiction. 2005, 100: 422-425.View ArticlePubMed
  38. Lundgren E, Heimer G, Westerstrand J, Kalliokoski A-M: Captured Queen. Men’s violence against women in “equal” Sweden – a prevalence study. 2001, Crime victim compensation and support authority: Stockholm
  39. Stenson K, Claesson I, Heimer G: Våldsutsatta kvinnors hälsa och livssituation: en longitudinell deskriptiv studie. [The health and life circumstances of women who are exposed to violence: a longitudinal descriptive study]. 2006, Uppsala: Rikskvinnocentrum (RKC), In Swedish
  40. Fernbrant C, Essén B, Östergren PO, Cantor-Graae E: Perceived threat of violence and exposure to physical violence against foreign-born women: A Swedish population-based study. Women’s Health Issues. 2011, 21: 206-213. 10.1016/j.whi.2010.12.001.View ArticlePubMed
  41. Caldwell JE, Swan SC, Woodbrown VD: Gender differences in intimate partner violence outcomes. Psychol Viol. 2012, 2: 42-57.View Article
  42. Ansara DL, Hindin MJ: Psychosocial consequences of intimate partner violence for women and men in Canada. J Interpers Violence. 2011, 26: 1628-1645. 10.1177/0886260510370600.View ArticlePubMed
  43. Fresco DM, Frankel AN, Mennin DS, Turk CL, Heimberg RG: Distinct and overlapping features of rumination and worry: the relationship of cognitive production to negative affective states. Cognit Ther Res. 2002, 26: 179-188. 10.1023/A:1014517718949.View Article
  44. Porcerelli JH, Coqan R, West PP, Rose EA, Lambrecth D, Wilson KE, Severson RK, Karana D: Violent victimization of women and men: physical and psychiatric symptoms. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003, 16: 32-39. 10.3122/jabfm.16.1.32.View ArticlePubMed
  45. Folkhälsoinstitutet: Folkhälsoinstitutet [The Swedish National Institute of Public Health]. 2013, http://​www.​folkhalsomyndigh​eten.​se/​documents/​statistik-uppfoljning/​enkater-undersokningar/​nationellafolkha​lsoenkaten/​nationella-folkhalsoenkaten​-ungas-halsa-2006-2008.​pdf,
  46. Dolmen L: Brottsutvecklingen i Sverige 2001–2003. [The development of crime in Sweden year 2001–2003]. 2004, Stockholm: BRÅ [The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention], In Swedish
  47. MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Jamieson E, Boyle M, McNutt LA, Worster A, Lent B, Webb M: Approaches to screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2006, 296: 530-536. 10.1001/jama.296.5.530.View ArticlePubMed
  48. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://​www.​biomedcentral.​com/​1471-2458/​14/​29/​prepub

Copyright

© Fridh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​2.​0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.