Archives

Too soon, too late: Understanding teenage relationship abuse through listening to young people’s voices

 

By Polina Obolenskaya and Annie Bunce, VISION Research Fellows

There is a growing recognition that children and young people experience harm in their romantic relationships, which often starts before they are 16 years old. Being on the cusp of adulthood makes teenage relationship abuse hard to spot, for both young people themselves and those who come in contact with them. While there have been some exemplary studies with young people in this area (e.g. by Barter et al. 2009; SafeLives), more research dedicated specifically to those under 16 is needed.

Therefore, we partnered with charity SafeLives and their network of young people who share a passion to end domestic abuse and tackle the social challenges facing today’s youth – the “Changemakers” – to run a consultation workshop with young people aged 18-25 who had experienced harm in intimate relationships when they were aged between 13 and 16.

The three overarching aims of this project were to gather young people’s perspectives on:

  1. The issues around providing effective support to young people with experience of abuse in romantic relationships, including its recognition, the complexities of help-seeking, and the adequacy of professional responses;
  2. The priorities for future research on teenage relationship abuse; and
  3. The appropriate methodological approaches for involving young people in this sort of research.

Our partnership with SafeLives and the Changemakers was at the heart of this project, they were instrumental in shaping the direction of the research from the beginning. We co-produced materials, the Changemakers facilitated the consultation workshop, we co-analysed some of the data, and their views informed how the findings were interpreted and written up. Having young people’s perspective challenged some of our assumptions and understanding, both of the topic and the research process itself. We worked collaboratively on a number of outputs, including an academic paper, a short report, an infographic, and presentations to a wide variety of audiences.

Below is a summary of some of our main findings from the project.

Harmful relationships are often difficult for young people to recognise

Young people told us that they thought it was difficult for those aged 13-16 to recognise harmful behaviours in teenage relationships. This is because these behaviours often become normalised- through peer groups, social media, popular culture and, for some, experiences of domestic abuse at home. Additionally, we heard that while young people might have recognised some behaviours as unhealthy at the time, they struggled to see the broader pattern or label it as abuse.

Professionals also struggle to identify harm in teenage relationships and their responses are inconsistent

Our participants described a range of experiences with various professionals, with the takeaway message being that responses to teenage relationship abuse are inconsistent. Some young people described teachers, police officers and support workers as people who listened carefully, took concerns seriously and made them feel supported. But at the same time, they had also encountered responses that felt dismissive or minimising, or they did not feel confident about approaching some professionals who might be able to help (e.g. teachers).

We found that the language used by the professionals was a barrier to identification of harm experienced by young people in their relationships, as well as its disclosure. Young people told us that when professionals use language and terms that they cannot relate to, it is harder for them to identify what is happening to them as abuse and/or it can discourage them from seeking help. We also heard that age-related stereotypes and a lack of awareness and understanding around abusive behaviours within teenage relationships further contribute to dismissive attitudes, with professionals attributing minimising labels, such as “teenage drama” to harmful behaviours. 

Young people want earlier intervention

Participants stressed the importance of earlier identification and intervention to address abuse in teenage relationships, particularly advocating for proactive efforts by teachers and schools. They also thought that changes in attendance, behaviour, or well-being should prompt teachers to investigate potential underlying issues. In fact, this inspired the project name, Too Soon, Too Late, which was developed by one of the Changemakers. The title reflects the experiences of teenagers who may struggle to access support at the point they really need it.

Our participants also acknowledged that the signs of abuse might be really difficult to spot. For example, they described how achieving good grades and appearing confident on the surface while struggling with significant difficulties in their relationships or home environment- what they referred to as the ‘good student’ stereotype- might lead teachers to assume they were OK.

Young people also told us how they think research could be done better

Participants described participating in research as potentially empowering and healing – being able to speak with others who had similar experiences helped some realise they were not alone. While our participants found participating in research rewarding in itself, they agreed that being renumerated is important, not only because it removes financial barriers but because it demonstrates that young people’s time and expertise are truly valued.

Young people told us that to ensure a more inclusive and intersectional understanding of teenage relationship abuse researchers need to actively engage a diverse range of participants, including those from marginalised communities, of different sexual orientations and gender identities, but also individuals who do not fit common stereotypes of victims-survivors of abuse and those without direct experience of abuse. They argued that researchers should proactively invite participation, via multiple streams, rather than relying on young people to seek out opportunities themselves.

Young people emphasised the importance of creating research environments that are safe, flexible and inclusive. They told us that they wanted a choice of different ways to participate, to receive clear communication and set realistic expectations, and to have opportunities to contribute to research after discussions had ended and they had had time to reflect on them. Language was again paramount here. Young people told us that for rapport to be built, for them to feel heard, and to enhance the overall quality of research, researchers need to speak to young people using their own language.

Another key message was that participation should not end at the end of data collection. Young people wanted to know how their contributions were being used and in what ways their involvement was making a difference. Being thanked, updated and shown the outcomes of research helped them feel like they had been part of something meaningful.

Conclusion

One of the strongest messages from this project is that to better understand young people’s experiences and help them, researchers and other professionals need to keep their eyes and ears to the ground and intervene early, provide a safe and inclusive environment for young people to share their stories, really listen to them and respond in their language, and take their experiences seriously. 

For further information: contact Polina at polina.obolenskaya@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photograph from Adobe Stock subscription

Doing co-analysis justice: Guiding principles

Our inspiration to create principles for co-analysis with those with lived experience of the criminal justice system stemmed from a previous participatory project which prompted conversation about the benefits and challenges of doing co-analysis ‘properly’. This project asked what does best practice look like and how can those with lived experience effectively take part?

Participatory or co-produced research is increasingly common. However, people with lived experience tend to be involved in the earlier and/or latter stages of research projects and less so in the nitty gritty middle stage. Therefore, VISION and Revolving Doors’ staff and lived experience team members collaborated to develop guidelines to inform the co-analysis process. These principles were created to support the flourishing landscape of research involving people with lived experience in the analysis and interpretation of results, equipping teams with guidance to facilitate meaningful and positive co-analysis.

The principles are organised into six themes:

  1. Supporting diversity in co-analysis
  2. Prioritise emotional safety and support
  3. Address power, hierarchy and tokenism to ‘level the playing field’
  4. Relationship building and team dynamics
  5. Training and shared learning
  6. Experiment with creative methods and outputs

Inspired by this last theme, accompanying the principles is a co-designed illustration that visually represents some of the ideas shared. The image is above and also available for download below.

This resource is for researchers, regardless of background and experience, and practitioners and managers who work with people with lived experience of the issues being studied. The principles will also be useful for those with an interest in teaching or training co-production methods, and anybody involved in the funding or ethical review of research projects embedding lived experience expertise.

We are keen to know how the principles work in practice. If you use them to guide your work, we warmly welcome feedback on how helpful you found them. Please let Annie know at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk.

To read the guidance: Doing co-analysis justice: Guiding principles

To find out more about the project: Exploring guiding principles for ‘Doing Co-Analysis Justice’

To find out more about Revolving Doors’ work: Revolving Doors – Breaking the cycle of crisis and crime

With thanks to the following individuals and organisations who co-developed the principles:

  • Revolving Doors: Lauren, Anthony, Charlotte, Charlie, De’Qeon, Jeanette, Leigh, Lucy, Mark, Rimona, Tony and Warren.
  • Dr Annie Bunce, VISION consortium, City St George’s University of London
  • Dr Danica Darley, University of Sheffield
  • Dr Elizabeth (Lizzie) Cook, VISION consortium, City St George’s University of London
  • Dr Les Humphreys, VISION consortium, University of Lancashire
  • Professor Sian Oram, VISION consortium, Kings College London
  • Dr Polina Obolenskaya, VISION consortium, City St George’s University of London
  • Professor Sally McManus, VISION consortium, City St George’s University of London

Illustration from Jenny Leonard Art

Disability and intimate partner violence in England: Gender stratified analyses

By Dr Ladan Hashemi, VISION Senior Research Fellow 

Disabled people are widely recognised as being at heightened risk of gender-based violence, and intimate partner violence (IPV) is one of its most common forms. Yet few prior random probability sample surveys in England have examined the full range of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological, and economic abuse) across different types of impairment, for both women and men. 

Existing research in this area has tended to rely on small, service-based samples rather than the general population, to focus on women only, and to treat “any IPV” as a single outcome rather than distinguishing between different forms of abuse. This matters because different forms of IPV have very different risk profiles and levels of visibility, and because without a general population sample of both genders, it isn’t possible to say whether disability affects men and women’s risk in the same way. 

To address this, together with my co-authors Dr Hannah Manzur, Dr Annie Bunce, and Professor Sally McManus, all VISION researchers, we used the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a nationally representative survey of 7,546 adults in England, to examine the 12-month prevalence of four types of IPV among people with and without four types of impairment: physical health conditions, sensory impairment, learning impairment, and restricted activities of daily living (ADLs). We tested the same disability types and IPV types for men and women, using models adjusted for age, ethnicity, marital status, and socioeconomic factors. 

Disabled women had almost twice the odds of experiencing psychological IPV, and around two and a half times the odds of experiencing sexual IPV, in the past year compared to non-disabled women. No significant difference was found for physical IPV. Women with a learning impairment reported the highest rates of IPV overall (around one in five had experienced some form of abuse in the past year), and women with restricted ADLs were at particularly high risk of economic abuse. For men, using the same measures and models, we found no significant differences in IPV risk between disabled and non-disabled men. 

This gendered pattern is consistent with the wider evidence base on IPV, in which women experience more frequent and more coercive forms of abuse than men, and it suggests that disability compounds this risk specifically for women. Disabled women’s risk was concentrated in the less visible forms of abuse (psychological and sexual, rather than physical), which points to a real gap: safeguarding responses attuned mainly to physical harm may be missing much of what disabled women experience. Isolation, dependency on a partner for care, and barriers to disclosure are all likely to play a part. 

The lack of a significant association for men may reflect several factors. Our sample of disabled men reporting IPV was relatively small, particularly for sexual IPV, which widens the uncertainty around these estimates. Disability may also interact with stigma and barriers to disclosure for men differently than for women, and the broader evidence base on men’s experiences of IPV, disabled or not, remains much thinner than for women. Further research with larger samples of disabled men would help clarify this pattern. 

These findings support investment in violence prevention programmes specifically designed for disabled women, particularly those with learning impairments or multiple impairments, and highlight the need for routes to disclosure that don’t rely on abuse being physically visible. They also point to the importance of coordination between domestic abuse services, disability support services, and health and social care, particularly where a partner also provides care. 

To download the article: Disability and intimate partner violence in England: Gender stratified analyses of a probability sample survey

To cite: Hashemi, L., Manzur, H., Bunce, A. et al. Disability and intimate partner violence in England: Gender stratified analyses of a probability sample survey. BMC Public Health (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-28489-5

For further information, contact: Ladan at ladan.hashemi@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photograph from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

5th VISION annual conference: Presentations and illustrations now available

The fifth VISION annual conference was held on 7 July at The Light Auditorium in Friends House. The theme was Violence prevention in dialogue: Research and Policy.

After five years of research looking at violence prevention and the resulting health inequalities and focusing on improved measurement, policy, and practice, and delivering through a strong cross-sector partnership, we showcased our research in partnership with stakeholders Refuge, High Trees, Migrants’ Rights Network, Gloucestershire police constabulary, and Revolving Doors. In addition, we invited those working in violence prevention to critically assess our contributions and identify where further research and prioritised focus are required.

Jo Todd of Respect and Professor Gene Feder, VISION Director, reflected on 25 years of working in violence prevention as frontline practitioners and researchers. Drawing on their extensive experience, they highlighted both the progress made and the challenges that remain. While collaboration between government, academia, and the third sector has improved, longstanding silos—particularly across the health and criminal justice sectors—persist. Overcoming these barriers requires sustained commitment to relationship-building and cross-sector working.

They noted that significant progress has been made in violence prevention policy, including the publication of the government’s Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) strategy last year. However, there remains considerable interest in how the incoming Prime Minister will take forward the Labour government’s commitment to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, and what this will mean for future policy, practice, and investment.

Professor Liz Kelly from London Metropolitan University was our 2nd keynote speaker and shared her thoughts on the language and naming of violence in the 21st century. Liz highlighted that  language changes not just what we say but what we know and recognise. The words we use in the field as researchers, analysts, policymakers, officials, and practitioners matter and should be clear and grounded in victim / survivor agency and freedom.

VISION research was highlighted in three symposiums:

  • Insight: Key findings on definitions and measurement within violence prevention
    • Dr Vishal Bhavsar (Kings College London) and Professor Miranda Horvath (University of Suffolk) presented on intimate partner violence perpetration.
    • Dr Madeleine Janickyj (University College London) and Emma Pickering (Refuge) presented on technology facilitated abuse.
  • Inclusion: Violence prevention research with marginalised populations
    • Dr Alexandria Innes (City St George’s UoL), Aya Khedairi (Migrants’ Rights Network) and Professor Gargi Bhattacharyya (University College London) presented on insecure migration status. Andri and Aya discussed their project, Understanding Violence: the risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism and the resulting output, Workbook: Migrant Community Insights on Building Safety. Gargi highlighted how the far right is misusing genuine work and research and that media discussion of VAWG frequently descends into racism and incitement.
    • Dr Annie Bunce (City St George’s UoL) and Lauren Bennett and Anthony Donohoe from Revolving Doors presented their work on developing principles for co-analysis with Lived Experience.
  • Involve: A look at two ongoing, impactful pieces of VISION research with partners
    • Dr Elizabeth Cook (City St George’s UoL) and Harry Jenkins (High Trees) presented their collaborative research developing Built on Trust, a report with youth from Lambeth in London on the role of youth spaces and trusted adults in reducing young people’s exposure to violence.
    • Dr Ruth Weir (City St George’s UoL) and Sophie Jarrett (Gloucestershire Police) presented on their system-wide partnership with central and local government, police, education trusts, and the third sector to understand and prevent teenage relationship abuse (TRA). This work has resulted in the establishment of a national group on TRA and a local group wtihin Gloucestershire.

VISION co-Deputy Directors, Professor Sally McManus (City St George’s UoL) and Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol) closed the conference by reflecting on the achievements of the VISION consortium and outlining priorities for the future of violence prevention research, policy, and practice. Sally highlighted the wide range of datasets, tools, resources, and publications developed by VISION over the past five years. Looking ahead, Estela emphasised the need for further research on violence affecting LGBTQI+ communities and minoritised women and children. She also stressed the importance of breaking down the persistent silos between the health and criminal justice sectors, noting that the impacts of violence extend across both systems. Effective prevention and support therefore require joined-up services, coordinated policies, and cross-sector collaboration.

Visual artists, Abigail and Chloe Baldwin, from Buttercrumble, beautifully captured the day in a series of illustrations which can be downloaded below along with the keynote and symposium presentations.

To download the presentations:

  1. Insight Symposium: Insight Symposium_Perpetrators of IPV; Insight Symposium_Tech Abuse
  2. Inclusion Symposium: Inclusion Symposium_Insecure migration status; Inclusion Symposium_Co-design of analysis principles
  3. Involve Symposium: Involve Symposium_Partnering with young people; Involve Symposium_Teenage Relationship Abuse
  4. Professor Liz Kelly, 2nd Keynote: Keynote 2_The language and naming of violence
  5. Professor Sally McManus, VISION Achievements: VISION achievements

To download the illustrations:

  1. Conference Summary
  2. 1st Keynote – Jo Todd and Gene Feder and 1st Keynote – 2nd illustration
  3. 2nd Keynote – Liz Kelly
  4. Insight Symposium – Data and Definitions
  5. Inclusion Symposium – Marginalised Populations
  6. Involve Symposium – Partnerships
  7. VISION Achievements
  8. Violence Prevention in Dialogue

VISION Policy Briefing: The role of health services in identifying and responding to teenage relationship abuse

 

 

Introduction

Teenage relationship abuse (TRA) is a growing public health concern that the current statutory framework is ill-equipped to address. Under-16s fall outside the legal definition of domestic abuse entirely, creating significant gaps in identification, referral and intervention at precisely the age when abuse most commonly begins. A Youth Endowment Fund survey of 11,000 teenagers aged 13 to 17 found that 39% of those who had been in a relationship had experienced emotional or physical abuse, yet no coherent professional or legal framework exists to respond.

This VISION Policy Briefing draws on findings from three place-based practitioner roundtables exploring TRA and conducted in Gloucestershire, Oxfordshire and Northumbria in 2025. As the first in a series of sector-specific policy briefs it sets out what the health sector is currently unable to do, where the opportunities lie, and what commissioners, NHS trusts and public health leads need to do differently. 

Key recommendations

  1. NHS commissioners to include TRA identification and referral in domestic abuse commissioning frameworks, explicitly covering under-16s
  2. Integration of TRA content into existing safeguarding and domestic abuse training frameworks for all health professionals working with young people, including GPs, school nurses, emergency services staff, sexual health clinicians and mental health practitioners – with outcome measurement built in
  3. Clear referral pathways from health settings into specialist TRA support to be established in every area, regardless of the young person’s age
  4. Health and Wellbeing Boards to include TRA as a public health priority in Joint Strategic Needs Assessments
  5. School health teams to be resourced and trained to deliver TRA/DA content as part of PSHE, building on the school nurse model in Oxford and aligned with the Mental Health Support Team roll out
  6. Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) to develop protocols for identifying TRA among young people presenting with mental health difficulties
  7. Extend operating hours for young people’s services

To download the VISION Policy Briefing: The role of health services in identifying and  responding to teenage relationship abuse

To cite: Weir, Ruth; Barrow-Grint, Katy (2026). VISION Policy Brief: Teenage Relationship Abuse and Health. City, University of London. Report. https://doi.org/10.25383/city.32292564.v1

For further information: Ruth at ruth.weir@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Intimate partner relationship abuse between men: An interdisciplinary seminar

 

Wednesday 17 June 2026, 13:00  – 16:45, in person only

This event is in the past.

This free, interdisciplinary seminar brings together leading voices from research, lived experience, performance, and specialist practice to examine intimate partner violence in relationships between men and consider implications for policy, research, professional practice, and wider system response.

Register here: Ticket Tailor

Despite increasing recognition that abuse within intimate male relationships is a significant public health, social justice, and service delivery issue, it remains under recognised across many systems and disciplines. Survivors frequently encounter barriers to recognition, disclosure, and support, while policy, professional training, and public discourse have historically paid limited attention to these experiences. 

This event will explore the dynamics, impacts, and structural challenges surrounding abuse in this context, and consider how research, policy, practice, and public understanding can evolve to better respond. 

The programme combines research presentations, creative performance, lived experience testimony, and expert commentary to offer a multi-dimensional exploration of the issue. The seminar will include catering and: 

  • A brief research presentation on prevalence, dynamics, barriers to recognition, and current evidence gaps from Dr Steven Maxwell 
  • A monologue from He Kept Me Safe, a research based verbatim play developed from survivor narratives exploring abuse within intimate male relationships by Dr Edgar Rodriguez-Doran 
  • A keynote contribution from broadcaster, comedian and survivor advocate James Barr, reflecting on his lived experience through comedy and the role of storytelling 
  • A talk from Tanaka Mhishi, writer and researcher in masculinity, trauma and sexual violence, exploring masculinity, trauma, violence, and engaging men in conversations about healing 
  • Brief facilitated interdisciplinary discussion on implications for research, policy, education, commissioning, service design, and practice 

This event aims to stimulate critical interdisciplinary dialogue and contribute to wider thinking on inclusive responses to domestic abuse and sexual violence. 

 

Intended Audience / Invitees 

The seminar is intended for a broad interdisciplinary audience including: 

  • Researchers and academics across social science, health, psychology, gender studies, criminology, law, public health, and related disciplines 
  • Policy makers and strategic leaders working in domestic abuse, sexual violence, health, justice, equalities, LGBTQ+ inclusion, and public policy 
  • Health and social care professionals 
  • Mental health practitioners and psychological therapists 
  • Domestic abuse and sexual violence services 
  • Policing, criminal justice, and legal professional 
  • LGBTQ+ and community sector organisations 
  • Sexual health and public health professionals 
  • Education and professional training providers 
  • Students and trainees with relevant academic or professional interests 
  • Wider stakeholders with interest in trauma, masculinity, violence prevention, and inclusive service/system design

 

Programme 

1.00 pm: Registration and Lunch 

1.30 pm: Welcome and Opening Remarks 

1.40 pm: Research Presentation: Understanding Intimate Partner Violence in Male Relationships: Prevalence, Dynamics and System Challenges 

2.00 pm: Monologue: He Kept Me Safe 

2.40 pm: Facilitated Discussion and Audience Reflection 

3.00 pm: Break 

3.15 pm: James Barr: Lived Experience, Comedy, and Public Discourse 

3.45 pm: Audience Q&A 

4.00 pm: Tanaka Mhishi: Masculinity, Trauma and Engaging Men in Conversations About Violence and Healing 

4.30 pm: Panel Discussion / Closing Audience Q&A 

4.45 pm: Close 

Join us at this free seminar, 17 June, Northampton Suite, City St George’s UoL, Clerkenwell, London, 1300 – 1645. To book your place please register here: Ticket Tailor 

Photograph provided via Adobe Stock subscription

VISION Policy Briefing: The impact of intimate partner violence on job loss and time off work in the UK

 

 

Key research findings

The latest research by VISION colleagues, Niels Blom and Vanessa Gash, finds serious negative effects of intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) on labour market outcomes, with 4% of those who experienced intimate partner violence losing their jobs because of the abuse. Furthermore, 1 in 8 of those who experienced intimate partner violence took a period of leave from work, with 1 in 4 of those who took leave needing to take a month or more off work.

Based on a large statistically representative sample for England and Wales, this research is one of the first to examine different types of IPVA, with five categories distinguished in the analysis.

The report examines differences between those who experienced; (1) physical abuse, (2) sexual abuse, (3) stalking, (4) coercive or controlling behaviour, as well as those who were (5) threatened with abuse by a current or former intimate partner.

There were strong differences in prevalence of IPVA by sex, with women disproportionately exposed to threats and to sexual violence. Additionally, compared to men, women were more likely to report multiple types of violence and abuse.

IPVA experiences are strongly related to employment status for both men and women; 5.2% of employed women experienced IPVA in the past year compared to 11.7% of unemployed women. IPVA was experienced by 2.8% of employed men and by 5.3% of unemployed men.

Job loss is associated with all five forms of IPVA, and the risks were highest for those who experienced: stalking, sexual violence as well as physical threats by an intimate partner.

The research, compiled in the latest VISION Policy Briefing, The Impact of Intimate Partner Violence on Job Loss and Time Off Work, also includes qualitative findings from those with lived experience of IPVA and abuse. Participants noted an ongoing stigmatisation of victims of abuse, which had serious impacts on disclosure. Victim-survivors noted their fear of being declared ‘unfit for work’ and of becoming a ’marked person’ should they disclose their abuse to relevant managers.

Figure 1. Types of IPVA experienced by female and male victim-survivors.

 

Policy implications

  • Though IPVA was found to have significant effects on victims’ experiences at work, those with lived experience noted a reluctance to disclose IPVA to relevant managers.
  • Employers may therefore want to consider enhanced IPVA and DA support systems for employees in the workplace.
  • While we can expect enhanced support to improve job retention and productivity, we currently lack the appropriate data to directly examine these effects

Updated version: key changes from version published in March 2024

Key changes are that we now include the survey collected in 2022/23, do not include 2004/05, and we now exclude people who had missing information on job classification (NS-SEC), or who lost their most recent employment more than a year before the interview. We now also include IPVA estimates by employment status.

Original VISION Policy Briefing

Short-report-Labour-market-consequences-of-IPVADownload

 

For further information, please contact: Dr Niels Blom at niels.blom@manchester.ac.uk or Prof Vanessa Gash at vanessa.gash.1@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Measuring perpetration of intimate partner violence: A systematic review

Understanding how common intimate partner violence (IPV) is in different groups and settings can inform better policies and interventions to prevent IPV and reduce its impact on public health. Much of the existing research on IPV has measured IPV victimisation in populations. But IPV reported by victims, e.g. in nationally representative crime or health surveys, reflects the behaviour of perpetrators. Asking people in surveys about their perpetration of IPV, and how frequently harmful behaviour(such as physical, sexual, or psychological harm) occur, is also important.

A new systematic review by VISION collaborator Vishal Bhavsar and VISION co-investigator Sian Oram gathers evidence on how IPV perpetration is measured in health surveys of the general population and presents a set of measurement principles. Based on 39 published articles, they find 27 health surveys containing information on IPV perpetration. These measures vary in detail, ranging from one or two binary items to more comprehensive scales. In many cases, the more detailed measures are adaptations of victimisation items reframed to capture perpetration, while a smaller number of studies use instruments specifically developed for IPV perpetration. Information relevant to understanding the public health implications of IPV perpetration, such as the sex and number of victims per perpetrator, the nature of relationships (e.g. marital, cohabiting), patterns of frequency or escalation, and harmful impact on victims, is not consistently collected. Details on the development and validation of measurement items are also often lacking.

Distinguishing IPV perpetrators from victims in measurement is important for the development of interventions, particularly where policies or programmes are designed to engage individuals who perpetrate IPV. Although health surveys do include some measures of perpetration, the extent and detail of these measures are limited. Some of the principles developed and applied in the review might also apply to the measurement of IPV perpetration and other forms of domestic abuse in electronic health records or policing data. A future cross-sector consensus on how to measure IPV perpetration might be helpful in informing the societal response to preventing IPV.

To download the paper: The Measurement of Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in General Population Health Surveys: Systematic Review

To cite: Bhavsar, V., Oram, S. The Measurement of Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence in General Population Health Surveys: Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. OnlineFirst, March 31, 2026.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-026-00272-2

Illustration from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

Perpetration of intimate partner violence and suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-suicidal self-harm: a cross-sectional secondary analysis using the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey

Intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization is associated with suicidal behaviour. Suicidal behaviour may also be raised among those who perpetrate IPV compared to those who do not; general population-based evidence is, however, lacking.

The research team, led by Dr Sophie Carlisle (Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust) with VISION researchers Professor Sally McManus, Professor Louise Howard, and Dr Vishal Bhavsar and others, aimed to investigate the associations between using violence against an intimate partner with suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt and non-suicidal self-harm in the past year.

In contrast to previous research focusing on those in contact with criminal justice or health services or with IPV perpetrator programmes, this study presents the first examination of the association between IPV perpetration and suicidality in a recent UK general population sample, which can contribute to the development of a national picture of this association and inform population level strategies to address both suicide and IPV perpetration.

The research team analysed data from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Logistic regressions estimated associations between IPV perpetration and suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and self-harm. Associations were estimated for men and women separately, and the team explored interaction in estimates by IPV victimization.

There were greater odds of suicidality and self-harm among self-reported perpetrators of IPV compared to the general population. Many of these associations were accounted for by non-IPV life adversities, IPV victimization and substance use. Improving the identification and management of IPV perpetration, and developing targeted safety planning and interventions for this group could reduce suicide for perpetrators and victims of IPV.

Future research generating adequately powered evidence on differences in these associations based on age or ethnic group, could inform targeted prevention/intervention strategies. Future work assessing the impact of increasing severity, or frequency, of IPV perpetration on risk of suicidality could also be helpful in informing future intervention strategies. Finally, further work should also consider the relevance of suicidality to a variety of harmful behaviours perpetrated within IPV. There remains limited evidence for interventions to reduce suicidality for perpetrators of IPV, including perpetrators who are also IPV victims.

Recommendation

Targeted identification and support for perpetrators of IPV could positively impact responses to suicidality and non-suicidal self-harm.

To download the paper: Perpetration of intimate partner violence and suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-suicidal self-harm: a cross-sectional secondary analysis using the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey

To cite: Carlisle S, Whyte R, Saunders K, McManus S, Oram S, Howard L, Bhavsar V. Perpetration of intimate partner violence and suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-suicidal self-harm: a cross-sectional secondary analysis using the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2026 Mar 26;35:e16. doi: 10.1017/S2045796026100559. PMID: 41883282.

Illustration from Adobe Stock subscription

VISION responds to Parliamentary, government & non-government consultations

Consultation, evidence and inquiry submissions are an important part of our work at VISION. Responding to Parliamentary, government and non-government organisation consultations ensures that a wide range of opinions and voices are factored into the policy decision making process. As our interdisciplinary research addresses violence and how it cuts across health, crime and justice and the life course, we think it is important to take the time to answer any relevant call and to share our insight and findings to support improved policy and practice. We respond as VISION, the Violence & Society Centre, and sometimes in collaboration with others. Below are the links to our published responses and evidence from June 2022.

  1. UK Parliament – International Development Committee – Inquiry: Women, Peace and Security. Our submission was published in March 2026
  2. UK Parliament – Public Bill Committee – Call for evidence: Crime and Policing Bill. Our submission was published in 2025
  3. UK Parliament (Library) – POSTNote – Approved Work: Violence Against Women and Girls in schools and among children & young people. Two VISION reports were referenced in their POSTNote published in August 2025
  4. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). Our submission was published in April 2025
  5. UK Parliament – House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility Policy – Call for Evidence: Exploring how education and work opportunities can be better integrated to improve social mobility across the UK. Our submission was published in 2025
  6. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: Community Cohesion. Our submission was published in February 2025
  7. UK Parliament – Call for evidence on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Our submission was published in February 2025
  8. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government. Our submission was published in January 2025
  9. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Homelessness. Our submission with Dr Natasha Chilman was published in January 2025. See the full report
  10. Home Office – Legislation consultation: Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews. Our submission was published on the VISION website in July 2024
  11. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The rights of older people. Our submission was published in November 2023
  12. UK Parliament  – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The impact of the rising cost of living on women. Our submission was published in November 2023
  13. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The escalation of violence against women and girls. Our submission published in September 2023
  14. Home Office – Legislation consultation: Machetes and other bladed articles: proposed legislation (submitted response 06/06/2023). Government response to consultation and summary of public responses was published in August 2023
  15. Welsh Government – Consultation: National action plan to prevent the abuse of older people. Summary of the responses published in April 2023
  16. Race Disparity Unit (RDU) – Consultation: Standards for Ethnicity Data (submitted response 30/08/2022). Following the consultation, a revised version of the data standards was published in April 2023
  17. UK Parliament – The Home Affairs Committee – Call for evidence: Human Trafficking. Our submission was published in March 2023
  18. UN expert – Call for evidence: Violence, abuse and neglect in older people. Our submission was published in February 2023
  19. UK Parliament – The Justice and Home Affairs Committee – Inquiry: Family migration. Our submission was published in September 2022 and a report was published following the inquiry in February 2023
  20. Home Office – Consultation: Controlling or Coercive behaviour Statutory Guidance. Our submission was published in June 2022

For further information, please contact us at VISION_Management_Team@city.ac.uk

Photo by JaRiRiyawat from Adobe Stock downloads (licensed)