• Ardabily, H. E., Moghadam, Z. B., Mahvash, S., Ramezanzadeh, F., & Saharnaz, N. (2011). Prevalence and risk factors for domestic violence against infertile women in an Iranian setting.International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics,112, 15-17. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2010.07.030

This study seeks “To determine the prevalence of and risk factors for domestic violence against women with female factor infertility in an Iranian setting.” Between 2009 and 2010, 400 women with infertility were survey in Tehran, Iran. Over 60% suggested that they had experienced domestic violence due to infertility. The results of this study show that this is an underreported problem and clinicians should be aware of this potential issue when working with infertile female clients.

  • Baker, C. K., Billhardt, K. A., Warren, J., Rollins, C., & Glass, N. E. (2010). Domestic violence, housing instability, and homelessness: A review of housing policies and program practices for meeting the needs of survivors. Aggression and Violent Behavior15, 430-439. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2010.07.005

“Evidence suggests that domestic violence is among the leading causes of housing instability (including homelessness) nationally for women and children. In this paper, we focus on housing policies and practices that may inadvertently make it more difficult for women to secure stable housing after having left an abusive partner. We review the types of housing options available for survivors of domestic violence, as well as housing policies and practices, including their strengths and limitations. In addition, the level of coordination between domestic violence and housing/homeless service systems is discussed. Our rationale for this review is to highlight not only the intent of specific policies and programs but also the effect of their implementation on women’s ability to secure stable housing. Finally, we explore alternatives to current housing policies and program practices that may serve as models for how to think “outside the box” so that women’s housing and safety needs can be better met.”

  • Baker, C. K., Cook, S. L., & Norris, F. H. (2003). Domestic violence and housing problems: A contextual analysis of women’s help-seeking, received informal support, and formal system response. Violence Against Women9(7), 754-783. doi: 10.1177/1077801203253402

“This study examined housing problems and homelessness after separation in a sample of 110 women who had experienced domestic violence. Of the sample, 38% reported home- lessness. Similar percentages reported housing problems (e.g., late paying rent, skipping meals, threatened with eviction). Predictors of more housing problems included experi- encing a greater severity of violence, contacting fewer formal systems, having less infor- mational support, and receiving a negative response from welfare. Women’s odds of reporting homelessness were reduced by 30% if police officers responded positively. These findings highlight the importance of changing system responses in an effort to reduce women’s housing problems and risks for homelessness after separation.”

  • Baker, C. K., Niolon, P. H., & Oliphant, H. E. (2009). A descriptive analysis of transitional housing programs for survivors of intimate partner violence in the united states. Violence Against Women15(4), 460-481. doi: 10.1177/1077801208330933

“The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2005 focuses on safe and independent housing for survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). The focus on housing in the latest version of VAWA suggests recognition by Congress that removing barriers and increasing access to safe housing is critical to our nation’s response to IPV, and that this type of systems-level response is necessary to reduce the link between IPV and subsequent homelessness. This study examines the current state of transitional housing programs (THPs) and discusses future program considerations, including the need for evaluation studies that consider the possible impact that transitional housing programs have on the rates of violence toward women and their children, and on women’s ability to achieve economic stability after separating from their abusive partners.”

  • Burman, E., & Chantler, K. (2005). Domestic violence and minoritisation: Legal and policy barriers facing minoritized women leaving violent relationships. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry28, 59-74. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2004.12.004

“This article on service responses to women of African, African-Caribbean, Irish, Jewish and South Asian backgrounds facing domestic violence draws on our recently completed study based in Manchester, UK. We frame our analysis of domestic violence and minoritisation around the question that is frequently posed in relation to women living with domestic violence: ‘why doesn’t she leave?’ In response, we highlight the complex and intersecting connections between domestic violence, law, mental health provision, entitlement to welfare services, which function alongside constructions of ‘culture’ and cultural identifications, structures of racism, class and gendered oppression. All these contribute to maintain women, particularly minoritized women, in violent relationships…It is argued that legal and psychological strategies need to address the complexity of how public, state and institutional practices intersect with racism, class and gender oppression in order to develop more sensitive and accessible ways of supporting minoritized women and children living with domestic violence.”

  • Cook, R. J., & Dickens, B. M. (2009). Dilemmas in intimate partner violence. International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics106, 72-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ijgo.2009.03.011

“Intimate partner violence (IPV), usually men’s violence against women, appears universal. It may be associated with pregnancy, but this may be because pregnant women receive more medical attention. Violence may cause bruises, abrasions, and cuts, but its extremes include hospitalization, death, and suicide. IPV is often disclosed when women are asked why they feel in poor health or depressed. A legal dilemma arises when healthcare providers consider that intervention such as law-enforcement is appropriate, but patients refuse approval. Patients may fatalistically accept violence, or fear loss of support for their children and themselves if their partners are held in custody. Legal reforms, such as punishing spousal rape, may provide some protection of women’s autonomy. Ethical dilemmas concern intervention without patients’ approval, and whether treating violent injuries without taking preventive action breaches the principle to Do No Harm. Professional advocacy and social action have been urged to expose and reduce IPV.”

  • Dixon, L., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2011). Understanding the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence and implications for practice and policy. Clinical Psychology Review31, 1145-1155. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2011.07.001

“Theoretical perspectives underlying hypotheses about the nature and etiology of intimate partner violence are important as they inform professionals how they should best respond to reduce or eliminate this social problem. Therefore, it is crucial that practice led initiatives are driven by theory that is supported by good quality empirical evidence. This review aims to provide a synthesis of methodologically sound research to understand how intimate partner violence is best conceptualized, and what the implications of this evidence based theory hold for practice and policy. A wealth of evidence supporting the need to further explore and respond to the spectrum of partner violence from a gender inclusive perspective is demonstrated. Implications of the evidence for multidisciplinary work, prevention, assessment, treatment, and policy related to intimate partner violence are discussed.”

“Just under one quarter of all homicide victims in England and Wales were killed by an intimate partner in the year 2008/9, according to Home Office statistics. In the aftermath of such fatalities, where the offender was clearly well known to the victim, questions are often raised about whether the attack could have been foreseen and whether services had failed the victim in not preventing the sometimes seemingly inevitable event. This article considers how psychological theory and research can lend itself to the prevention of serious and fatal intimate partner violence and looks at the current state of practice in this domain. “

  • Dutton, D. G., Corvo, K. N., & Hamel, J. (2009). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and practice part II: The information website of the American Bar Association. Aggression and Violent Behavior14, 30-38. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2008.08.002

“The Website of the American Bar Association (ABA) sets out to correct ten purported myths about domestic or intimate partner violence (IPV). The critique of these myths appears to be empirically based. However, a close reading of the studies used to debunk these “myths” shows that they are either: 1) government publications with no empirical data, or 2) empirical studies that do not refute the targeted myth. The problems with the false conclusions on the website are varied, but three main ones are: 1) confusion of allegations of abuse with real incidence of abuse; 2) interpretations of unsubstantiated claims of child abuse that are based on varied sources for corroboration that use vague decision criteria in studies not designed to assess malingered claims; and 3) over simplification of the complex causality of psychological phenomena, such as Parental Alienation Syndrome. In many of these studies, social science methodology may be poorly suited to answer questions best left to an unbiased weighting of facts in an individual case.”

  • Dutton, D. G., & Nicholls, T. L. (2005). The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1 – the conflict of theory and data. Aggression and Violent Behavior10, 680-714. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2005.02.001

“Feminist theory of intimate violence is critically reviewed in the light of data from numerous incidence studies reporting levels of violence by female perpetrators higher than those reported for males, particularly in younger age samples. A critical analysis of the methodology of these studies is made with particular reference to the Conflict Tactics Scale developed and utilised by Straus and his colleagues. Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for bqualitativeQ studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. A case is made for a paradigm having developed amongst family violence activists and researchers that precludes the notion of female violence, trivializes injuries to males and maintains a monolithic view of a complex social problem. “

  • Earner. (2010). Double risk: Immigrant mothers, domestic violence and public child welfare services in new york city. Evaluation and Program Planning33, 288-293. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.05.016
  • Ellsberg, M., & Heise, L. (2002). Bearing witness: Ethics in domestic violence research. The Lancet359(9317), 1599-1604. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08521-5
  • Emery, C. (2011). Disorder or deviant order? re-theorizing domestic violence in terms of order, power and legitimacy. Aggression and Violent Behavior16, 525-540. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.07.001
  • Evans, I., & Lindsay, J. (2008). Incorporation rather than recovery: Living with the legacy of domestic violence. Women’s Studies International Forum31, 355-362. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2008.08.003
  • Garcia-Moreno, C. (2002). Violence against women: What is the World Health oOrganization doing? International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics,78(1), S119-S122.
  • Gelles, R. J. (2000). Public policy for violence against women: 30 years of successes and remaining challenges. American Journal of Preventive Medicine19(4), 298-301.
  • Green, A., & Ward, S. (2010). Domestic violence: Case-based learning. Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine20(4), 121-124.
  • Hamby, S. L. (2000). The importance of community in a feminist analysis of domestic violence among American Indians. American Journal of Community Psychology28(5), 649-669.
  • Hamilton, M. (2010). Judicial discourses on women’s agency in violent relationships: Cases from california. Women’s Studies International Forum,33, 570-578. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2010.09.007
  • Hidrobo, M., & Fernald, L. (2013). Cash transfers and domestic violence. Journal of Health Economics,32, 304-319. Retrieved from
  • Hoyle, C. (2008). Will she be safe? a critical analysis of risk assessment in domestic violence cases. Children and Youth Services Review30, 323-337. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.10.009
  • Humphreys, C., & Joseph, S. (2004). Domestic violence and the politics of trauma. Women’s Studies International Forum27, 559-570. doi: 10.1016/j.wsif.2004.09.010
  • Jones, A. (2012). Intimate partner violence in military couples: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior17, 147-157. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2011.12.002
  • Macy, R. J., Giattina, M., Sangster, T. H., Crosby, C., & Montijo, N. J. (2009). Domestic violence and sexual assault services: Inside the black box. Aggression and Violent Behavior14, 359-373. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2009.06.002
  • Malos, E., & Hague, G. (1997). Women, housing, homelessness, and domestic violence. Women’s Studies International Forum20(3), 397-409.
  • Menard, A. (2001). Domestic violence and housing: Key policy and program challenges. Violence Against Women7(6), 707-720. doi: 10.1177/10778010122182686
  • Paglione, G. (2006). Domestic violence and housing rights: A reinterpretation of the right to housing. Human Rights Quarterly28(1), 120-147. Retrieved from .
  • Pavao, J., Alvarez, J., Baumrind, N., Induni, M., & Kimerling, R. (2007). Intimate partner violence and housing instability. American Journal of Preventive Medicine32(2), 143-146.
  • Ponic, P., Varcoe, C., Davies, L., Ford-Gilboe, M., Wuest, J., & Hammerton, J. (2011). Leaving ≠ moving: Housing patterns of women who have left an abusive partner. Violence Against Women17(12), 1576-1600. doi: 10.1177/1077801211436163
  • Raphael, J. (2001). Public housing and domestic violence.Violence Against Women7(6), 699-706. doi: 10.1177/10778010122182677
  • Reid, M. (2012). Public housing and gender: Contextualizing the “we call these projects home” report. Cities, 1-7. Retrieved from http://
  • Stainbrook, K. A., & Hornik, J. (2006). Similarities in the characteristics and needs of women with children in homeless family and domestic violence shelters.Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services87(1), 53-62. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.3484
  • Stark, E. (2010). Do violent acts equal abuse? Resolving the gender parity/asymmetry dilemma. Sex Roles62, 201-211. doi: 10.1007/s11199-009-9717-2
  • Westbrook, L. (2008). Crisis information concerns: Information needs of domestic violence survivors.Information Processing and Management45, 98-114. doi: 10.1016/j.ipm.2008.05.005
  • Winstok, Z. (2007). Toward an interactional perspective on intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior12, 348-363. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2006.12.001

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s