Determinants of Intimate Partner Violence against Pregnant Women in Ethiopia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) against pregnant women is a recognized global public health problem affecting all spheres of women and unborn infants. In Ethiopia, although inconsistent, individual studies avail; there is a dearth of systematic reviews and meta-analysis about the prevalence and associated factors of intimate partner violence. Thus, the present study was aimed at determining the pooled prevalence of IPV and its determinant factors during pregnancy. Methods The report of meta-analysis follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 20 guideline (PRISMA 20). Databases including PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, SCOPUS, HINARI (research4life), AJOL, IRIS, and AIM were searched. Heterogeneity test was assessed by the Cochrane chi-square (χ2) and quantified by I2 statistics test. Publication bias was tested by funnel plots and Egger's test. Sensitivity test and subgroup analysis were also performed. Effect size was calculated by random effects model. Results A total of 26 studies, including data from 13, 912 participants, were included in the analysis. The prevalence of IPV ranged from 7% to 81% with overall estimated pooled prevalence of 37% (30% -44%, I2 = 96.5%, p ≤ 0.001). Of this, the prevalence of physical, sexual, and psychological violence was 24% (95% CI; 19%-30%), 21% (95% CI; 16%-26%), and 27% (95% CI; 22%-32%), respectively. Factors such as lack of formal education, childhood violence, rural residency, low decision-making power, family history of violence, attitude, unplanned and unwanted pregnancy by women and partners, late initiation of antenatal care, partner alcohol, and khat use were associated with IPV. Conclusion More than one-third of pregnant women experienced IPV. The most prevalent form of IPV was psychological violence followed by physical and sexual violence. The identified risk for IPV including victim, pregnancy, and perpetrator-related factors indicated the need of a holistic approach in the promotion, prevention, and treatment of IPV. The finding of this study suggests the need of strengthening women empowerments (capacity building) against traditional beliefs, attitudes, and practices. This study also suggests the need of evaluation and strengthening the collaborative work among different sectors such as policy-makers, service providers, administrative personnel, and community leaders, including the engagement of men partners.


Rationale
3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. 3-4 Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. 4

METHODS
Eligibility 5 Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. 7 Information sources 6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

5
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

5
Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
6 Data collection process 9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

7
Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

7
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.
8 Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

8
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.

8-9
Synthesis methods 13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).

8-9
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

8-9
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. 8-9 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.

8
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).

8
13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. 8 Reporting bias assessment 14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). Certainty assessment 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. 8-9

RESULTS
Study selection 16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

& 22
16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. NA 24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. NA 24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. NA Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.

17
Competing interests 26 Declare any competing interests of review authors. 17 Availability of data, code and other materials 27 Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.