Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-022-00683-2
1 
ORIGINAL PAPER
Ugandan Men Exposed to Intimate Partner Violence: 
A Cross‑Sectional Survey of Nationally Representative Data
Jacinta Waila1 · Herman Lule1,2 · Michael Lowery Wilson3 · Till Bärnighausen3 · 
Anne Abio1,3
Accepted: 30 April 2022 / Published online: 1 June 2022 
© The Author(s) 2022
Abstract
Although women typically constitute the largest proportion of the population who 
experience the deleterious effects of intimate partner violence (IPV), understanding 
the bidirectional nature of IPV is important for developing nuanced prevention ini-
tiatives. This study examines data from the 2016 Ugandan Demographic and Health 
Survey. Participants were selected from households in all the 15 regions in Uganda 
using a two stage sampling design. A total of 2858 men who were in a heterosexual 
union or separated/divorced were included in the analysis. Univariate and multivari-
able logistic regression analyses were performed with the aim of identifying asso-
ciations between selected demographic variables and male exposure to all forms of 
IPV combined, psychological violence, physical violence and sexual violence. The 
prevalence of lifetime IPV and during the 12 months preceeding the survey respec-
tively was 43.6 and 30.5% in all forms, with 35.9 and 24.8% reporting psychologi-
cal, 20.2 and 11.9% for physical and 8.2 and 5.7% sexual violence. The key factors 
associated with all forms of IPV were being afraid of their wife/partner most of the 
time (OR = 5.10, 95% CI 2.91, 8.96) controlling behaviour of the intimate partner 
(OR = 3.80, 95% CI 2.84, 5.07), bi-directional violence against the partner (OR = 
3.20, 95% CI 2.49, 4.12), alcohol consumption by the intimate partner (OR = 1.85, 
95% CI 1.40, 2.45). The factors associated with males who experience IPV appear 
to be modifiable and may warrant consideration for inclusion in programs support-
ing both males and females who experience IPV.
Keywords Violence · Community health · Mental health · Abuse · Domestic 
violence · Epidemiology · Sub Saharan Africa
 * Michael Lowery Wilson 
 michael.wilson@uni-heidelberg.de
1 Injury Epidemiology and Prevention (IEP) Research Group, Turku Brain Injury Centre, Turku 
University Hospital and University of Turku, Turku, Finland
2 Department of Surgery, Directorate of Research and Innovations, Kampala International 
University, Kampala, Uganda
3 Heidelberg Institute of Global Health (HIGH), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany
568 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Introduction
Violence within intimate partnerships is a significant problem of public health 
importance worldwide. The WHO defines intimate partner violence (IPV) as ”any 
behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or 
sexual harm to those in the relationship” (WHO, 2012). Contrary to the ubiqui-
tous notion that IPV is almost always directed towards women, there is research 
highlighting women as perpetrators (Carmo et al., 2011; Hines  & Douglas, 2009; 
Hine et al., 2021; Park et al., 2021). Indeed, literature showing that women bear 
the greatest burden of IPV with regard to prevalence, severity of injuries and 
adverse consequences (Carbone-López et al., 2006; Tjaden  & Thoennes, 2000), 
has been challenged by research highlighting gender symmetry in IPV perpetra-
tion (Archer, 2000; Chen   &  Chan, 2021). Furthermore, most violent incidents 
between intimate partners appear to be characterised by mutual aggression 
(Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012), sometimes initiated by the female partner 
(Powney  & Graham-Kevan, 2019). Consequently, despite trivialization of a rela-
tively old argument that, within the family setting, women are just as violent as 
men (Straus  & Gelles, 1986), coupled with a global focus on women as the main 
targets of IPV, this proposition seems to be gaining support.
The WHO global estimates show that 30% of women who have been in an 
intimate relationship have experienced IPV, a figure which stands at 36.6% in the 
African region (WHO, 2013). Similar estimates for male IPV are unavailable but 
several scholars have been able to estimate the IPV prevalence in various world 
regions. For instance, nationally representative data reveal the lifetime prevalence 
of any form of male IPV to be 22.9% (Coker et al., 2002), with physical IPV esti-
mated at about 15% in the United States (Breiding, 2014; Breiding et al., 2008). 
In Europe, lifetime psychological, sexual and physical IPV prevalence among 
men is estimated to be as high as 72%, 27% and 31% in some cities (Costa et al., 
2015). In the East African region, a nationally representative sample in Kenya 
estimated the lifetime experience of any form of IPV among ever partnered men 
between the ages of 15 and 49 years to be 24% with the most reported form of 
IPV being psychological at 21% and sexual violence the lowest at 4% (KNBS 
et  al., 2015). In Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 34.8% of men reported experiencing 
any form of IPV within the preceding 12 months (Mulawa et  al., 2016). Death 
is undeniably the worst but not the only adverse outcome of IPV often affecting 
intimate partners but also other individuals such as their children, friends and 
relatives (Smith et al., 2014).
Psychological IPV is more strongly associated with negative physical and men-
tal health outcomes than physical IPV (Coker et al., 2002). Post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD), alcohol and substance abuse, anxiety and depression are some 
of the mental disorders linked to male IPV experience (Coker et al., 2002; Car-
bone-López et al., 2006; Hines  & Douglas, 2009; Lagdon et al., 2014). Further, 
chronic disorders such as hypertension and diabetes mellitus are also associated 
with male IPV (Coker et al., 2002). Though physical injuries may not be severe 
when IPV is directed towards men, women, especially when using harm-inflicting 
569
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
objects or weapons, have the potential to cause serious injuries (Busch  & Rosen-
berg, 2004; Hines  & Douglas, 2009). Abrasions, broken bones, tooth loss, injury 
to sensory organs, burns as well as stab and gunshot wounds are some of the doc-
umented physical injuries inflicted on men (Carbone-López et al., 2006; Carmo 
et  al., 2011; Hines   &  Douglas, 2009; Tjaden   &  Thoennes, 2000). In spite of 
these serious adverse health outcomes, male IPV is still under-reported due to the 
perception that such violence does not conform to societal norms, a notion that 
attracts ridicule and shame (Bates, 2020; Douglas  & Hines, 2011).
Besides health consequences, the economic losses occasioned by IPV are 
significant, most of which are related to lost productivity, medical bills, prop-
erty loss or damage and criminal justice costs (King et al., 2017; Peterson et al., 
2018). Being relatively young, unemployed or having a low income, low edu-
cational attainment, belonging to certain ethnic groups and residing in certain 
regions are some of the documented socio-economic factors associated with 
IPV experience among men (Breiding et  al., 2008; Cunradi et  al., 2002; Marie 
et al., 2008; Mulawa et al., 2016). Similarly, alcohol and substance abuse, antiso-
cial personality and being from a dysfunctional family environment where one is 
exposed to parental alcoholism, illicit drug use, interpersonal violence and child-
hood exposure to abuse are developmental and behavioural factors closely linked 
to male IPV (Carmo et  al., 2011; Linder   &  Collins, 2005; Marie et  al., 2008; 
White  & Widom, 2003). Partner dominance often manifested through controlling 
behaviours is commonly linked to relationship dissatisfaction, a substantial risk 
factor for IPV experience not just for men but women alike (Bates, 2016; Slep 
et al., 2010).
Though some scholars posit that women bear the burden of IPV disproportion-
ately, the availability of literature highlighting gender symmetry in IPV perpetra-
tion and similar consequences in men and women is a call for deliberate explo-
ration of male IPV. The bidirectional nature of most IPV occurrences calls for 
a holistic understanding of the problem if prevention strategies are to be effec-
tive (Bates, 2016; Hines  & Douglas, 2009; Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., 2012). 
The adoption of this holistic approach necessitates deliberate efforts in generat-
ing knowledge on male IPV, and more especially in sub Saharan Africa countries 
which despite reporting high prevalence of IPV directed towards women (Devries 
et al., 2013; WHO, 2013), have data evidence on male experienced IPV. Nation-
ally representative data from Uganda, a low-income country in East Africa, shows 
that about 56% of married or cohabiting women between the ages of 15 and 49 
years have experienced at least one form of IPV with physical IPV being the most 
reported type at 41% (Gubi et al., 2020). While some of the IPV prevention inter-
ventions in Uganda focus on social behaviour change communication to influ-
ence the adoption of tolerant social norms and behaviours (Ashburn et al., 2017; 
Michaels-Igbokwe et al., 2016; Wagman et al., 2012), a glaring gap in the fight 
against IPV is the mere assumption that men are the perpetrators yet male IPV in 
the country has not been characterised. Using nationally representative Uganda 
Demographic Health Survey 2016 data, this study seeks to describe male IPV in 
Uganda by estimating its burden and associated factors.
570 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Methods
Data and Population
The data were derived from the 2016 Ugandan contribution to the Demographic 
Health Survey (DHS). The DHS is a cross-sectional survey and the data are col-
lected from a nationally representative sample of the entire population. The survey 
was conducted by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS). A two-stage stratified 
cluster sampling design was used to select the population for participation. All the 
15 regions that were available from the 2014 National Population and Housing Cen-
sus were represented in the survey. Moreover, the survey used Enumeration Areas 
(EAs) that were created during the census. A total of 697 EAs were selected in the 
first stage (162 EAs in urban areas and 535 in rural areas), while the second stage 
involved a selection of households within an EA or a segment of the EA if it con-
tained more than 300 households. A total of 30 households per EA or segment from 
an EA were randomly selected resulting in a total of 20 880 households. Males aged 
15 to 54 years from one third of the sampled households (one per selected house-
hold) were eligible to participate in the survey. Data collection took place from 20 
June 2016 to 16 December 2016. The data derived from this survey are publicly 
available. Further details about the survey, methodology and ethical approval are 
available elsewhere (ICF. The DHS Program - Uganda: Standard DHS. Funded by 
USAID, 2016).
Participants
Out of a total of 5 676 eligible men selected from households, 5 336 were success-
fully interviewed. A total of 4 011 males responded to the 2016 domestic violence 
module of the Ugandan DHS while 2 858 male participants responded to the IPV 
questions used in this study and were included in the analysis. The respondents were 
either in a heterosexual union (married or cohabiting) or separated/divorced.
Variables of Interest
The outcome of interest was the reported experience of IPV among males. IPV 
experience was further subdivided into psychological, physical and sexual violence 
based on three of the four major typologies of violence as described by WHO (Krug 
et al., 2002). In this case, a binary variable about IPV was created, based on if the 
participants reported having ever experienced any of the three types of violence. The 
questions on psychological violence included whether their wives/partners had ever 
humiliated or threatened them. The questions on physical violence included whether 
the respondents had ever been hit, kicked, slapped, punched, pushed, threatened, 
strangled or burnt by their wives/partners. Moreover, the questions on sexual vio-
lence included if the respondents had been forced to have unwanted sex or perform 
sexual acts with their wives/partners. The associated exploratory factors investigated 
571
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
in the study included age, sex, place of residence (rural vs urban), employment, 
income, the level of education, number of children, smoking status, number of sex-
ual partners, whether they had given gifts for sex, wife drank alcohol, bi-directional 
violence and controlling behaviour (Supplementary Table 1).
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated using based svy Pearson Chi-squared tests. 
Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the strength and direction of 
associations between the outcomes of interest and the associated covariates. Uni-
variate and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine associations 
between each individual covariate. Variables were retained in a multivariable model 
based on p = 0.1. The statistical significance used was 0.05 with a 95% confidence 
interval. The survey-based design was used both for Chi-squared tests and the logis-
tic regression analysis. The svylogitgof (Archer  & Lemeshow, 2006) was used to 
test for the fit of the multivariable models, and were found to have a good fit. Stata 
17 (StataCorp, TX, USA) was used for the analysis.
Results
A total of 1 264 (43.6%) and 905 (30.5%) of the males in this study had ever experi-
enced any form of IPV during their lifetime and over the last 12 months respectively 
(Table  1). Among the three types of violence, 35.9% and 24.8% reported having 
experienced psychological violence, 20.2% and 11.9% physical violence and 8.2% 
and 5.7% sexual violence within the recall periods over their lifetime and the last 12 
months respectively. A majority of the respondents reported being currently married 
or cohabiting (91.4%), and living in rural areas (78.0%) at the time of the survey 
(Table 2).
The study found that 21.1% of the respondents were afraid of their spouses 
sometimes or most of the time, while 40.7% had witnessed parental abuse (father 
beat mother). Moreover, 22% reported hurting their wife/partner when she was not 
hurting him signifying bi-directional violence, and 77.7% had experienced control-
ling behaviour from their partners. In the unadjusted logistic models (Table 3), the 
factors associated with all forms of IPV were being afraid of the wife most of the 
time (OR 7.94, 95% CI 4.39, 14.37), controlling behaviour (OR 4.76, 95% CI 3.59, 
6.29) and hurting the wife when she was not hurting him (OR 4.39, 95% CI 3.47, 
5.56). Males who had a wife or wives were less likely to experience IPV. On the 
other hand, the respondents who were separated or divorced were twice as likely to 
experience IPV compared to those currently in a union. Similar associations were 
observed for psychological violence with being afraid most of the time (OR 5.89, 
95% CI 3.21, 10.80), controlling behaviour (OR 6.26, 95% CI 4.57, 8.59) and hurt 
wife/partner (OR 4.10, 95% CI 3.25, 5.16).
On the other hand, the factors associated with physical violence were being afraid 
of the wife/partner most of the time (OR 7.37, 95% CI 4.24, 12.79), wife/partner 
572 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Table 1  Descriptive statistics of intimate partner violence against males in Uganda (2016) – unweighted 
numbers and weighted percent over lifetime and past 12 months
Variable IPV (lifetime) No IPV (lifetime) IPV (12 mo. No IPV (12 mo.)
IPV (all types) 1264 (43.6) 1594 (56.4) 905 (30.5) 1954 (69.5)
Psychological violence 1053 (35.9) 1805 (64.1) 750 (24.8) 2108 (75.2)
Physical violence 579 (20.2) 2279 (79.8) 348 (11.9) 2510 (88.2)
Sexual violence 237 (8.2) 2621 (91.8) 161 (5.7) 2697 (94.3)
Age
15–24 156 (43.3) 201 (56.7) 132 (36.9) 225 (63.1)
25–34 505 (43.0) 657 (57.0) 395 (34.0) 767 (66.0)
35–44 381 (46.1) 439 (53.9) 245 (28.6) 575 (71.4)
45–54 222 (41.4) 297 (58.6) 132 (23.2) 387 (76.8)
Place of residence
Rural 1081 (43.8) 1279 (56.2) 722 (30.4) 1575 (69.6)
Urban 246 (42.9) 315 (57.1) 182 (30.8) 379 (69.2)
Level of education
No education 69 (39.8) 91 (60.2) 50 (27.4) 110 (72.6)
Primary 769 (45.8) 914 (54.2) 539 (31.0) 1144 (69.0)
Secondary 275 (41.4) 382 (58.6) 203 (30.4) 454 (69.6)
Tertiary 151 (39.8) 207 (60.2) 112 (29.7) 246 (70.3)
Marital status
Currently married/union 1119 (41.8) 1506 (58.2) 839 (30.8) 1786 (69.2)
Separated/divorced 145 (62.6) 88 (37.4) 65 (27.0) 168 (73.0)
Employment
No 26 (47.4) 25 (52.6) 19 (34.7) 32 (65.3)
Yes 1238 (43.6) 1569 (56.4) 885 (30.4) 1922 (69.6)
Wealth index
Poorest 274 (41.2) 381 (58.8) 194 (28.1) 461 (71.9)
Poorer 281 (44.4) 316 (55.6) 209 (33.6) 388 (66.7)
Middle 258 (45.9) 308 (54.1) 186 (32.5) 380 (67.5)
Richer 249 (45.0) 304 (55.0) 176 (29.9) 377 (70.1)
Richest 202 (41.4) 285 (58.6) 139 (28.5) 348 (71.5)
Number of children
0 64 (42.7) 99 (57.3) 49 (34.3) 114 (65.7)
1–4 591 (42.6) 799 (57.4) 446 (31.8) 944 (68.2)
5+ 609 (44.8) 696 (55.2) 409 (28.7) 896 (71.3)
Smoking
Does not smoke 1037 (41.3) 1419 (58.7) 756 (29.7) 1700 (70.3)
Some days 50 (53.6) 44 (46.4) 37 (38.6) 57 (61.4)
Everyday 177 (59.7) 131 (40.3) 111 (34.0) 197 (66.0)
Number of wives
0 (Separated/Divorced) 145 (62.6) 88 (37.4) 65 (27.0) 168 (73.0)
1 919 (41.3) 1296 (58.7) 685 (30.3) 1530 (69.7)
2+ 200 (45.3) 210 (54.7) 154 (33.9) 256 (66.1)
573
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
often being drunk (OR 6.31, 95% CI 3.00, 13.28) and bi-directional violence against 
the wife/partner (OR 4.00, 95% CI 3.19, 5.03). Sexual violence was strongly associ-
ated with controlling behaviour (OR 7.53, 95% CI 4.20, 13.49), wife/partner often 
being drunk (OR 6.09, 95% CI 1.99, 18.63) and being afraid of the wife/partner 
most of the time (OR 4.62, 95% CI 2.45, 8.71).
Congruently, in the multivariable models (Table 4), the factors associated with all 
forms of IPV, were being afraid of the wife/partner most of the time (OR 5.10, 95% 
CI 2.91, 8.96), controlling behaviour (OR 3.80, 95% CI 2.84, 5.07), and bi-direction 
violence against the wife/partner (OR 3.20, 95% CI 2.49, 4.12). Similar factors were 
observed for psychological violence, with controlling behaviour (OR 4.93, 95% CI 
3.57, 6.81), being afraid of the wife/partner most of the time (OR 4.28, 95% CI 2.50, 
Table 1  (continued)
Variable IPV (lifetime) No IPV (lifetime) IPV (12 mo. No IPV (12 mo.)
No. sex partners (past 12 mo.)
None 894 (39.6) 1354 (60.4) 635 (27.4) 1613 (72.6)
One or more 370 (58.8) 240 (41.2) 269 (42.2) 341 (57.8)
Given gifts for sex (past 12 mo.)
No 1165 (42.4) 1546 (57.6) 833 (29.7) 1878 (70.3)
Yes 99 (65.5) 47 (34.5) 71 (45.3) 75 (54.7)
Respondent afraid of wife
Never 855 (37.3) 1546 (62.7) 592 (25.1) 1661 (74.9)
Sometimes 342 (65.2) 178 (34.8) 258 (48.3) 262 (32.3)
Most of the time 67 (82.5) 18 (17.5) 54 (67.7) 31 (51.7)
Father beat mother
No 573 (38.0) 947 (62.0) 406 (26.4) 1114 (73.6)
Yes 605 (50.1) 554 (49.9) 438 (35.5) 721 (64.5)
Don’t know 86 (50.0) 93 (50.0) 60 (33.4) 119 (66.6)
Wife drinks alcohol
No 913 (39.3) 1379 (60.7) 655 (27.6) 1637 (72.4)
Yes 351 (62.5) 215 (37.5) 249 (43.0) 317 (57.0)
Frequency of wife being drunk
Never 74 (51.4) 66 (48.6) 50 (32.8) 90 (67.2)
Sometimes 218 (63.9) 135 (36.1) 157 (45.3) 196 (54.7)
Often 59 (79.9) 14 (20.1) 42 (53.9) 31 (46.1)
Bi-directional violence*
No 809 (35.9) 1413 (64.1) 586 (25.5) 1636 (74.5)
Yes 455 (71.1) 181 (28.9) 318 (48.1) 318 (51.9)
Controlling behaviour
No 116 (18.2) 505 (81.8) 73 (10.1) 548 (89.9)
Yes 1148 (51.1) 1089 (48.9) 831 (36.5) 1406 (63.5)
12 mo. refers to IPV experience in the 12 months preceding the survey
*Hurt wife/partner when she was not hurting the male respondent
574 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 C
ro
ss
-ta
bu
lat
io
ns
 of
 m
ale
s w
ho
 re
po
rte
d e
xp
er
ien
cin
g i
nt
im
ate
 pa
rtn
er
 vi
ol
en
ce
 in
 U
ga
nd
a (
20
16
)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
p
Se
xu
al
p
Ag
e
0.5
30
0.0
22
0.3
90
0.0
59
15
–2
4
15
6 (
43
.3)
11
9 (
31
.1)
65
 (1
9.4
)
44
 (1
1.5
)
25
–3
4
50
5 (
43
.0)
41
7 (
35
.7)
23
8 (
20
.0)
10
2 (
9.3
)
35
–4
4
38
1 (
46
.1)
33
4 (
40
.5)
15
7 (
18
.7)
53
 (6
.5)
45
–5
4
22
2 (
41
.4)
18
3 (
32
.5)
11
9 (
23
.3)
38
 (6
.7)
Pl
ac
e 
of
 re
si
de
nc
e
0.7
63
0.8
47
0.3
60
0.5
46
Ru
ra
l
10
81
 (4
3.8
)
83
7 (
35
.8)
47
5 (
20
.7)
18
2 (
8.0
)
Ur
ba
n
24
6 (
42
.9)
21
6 (
36
.4)
10
4 (
18
.5)
55
 (9
.0)
Le
ve
l o
f e
du
ca
tio
n
0.2
55
0.2
41
0.0
30
0.2
85
No
 ed
uc
ati
on
69
 (3
9.8
)
53
 (3
4.4
)
38
 (2
2.6
)
12
 (6
.5)
Pr
im
ar
y
76
9 (
45
.8)
65
4 (
38
.0)
36
5 (
22
.4)
13
6 (
8.5
)
Se
co
nd
ar
y
27
5 (
41
.4)
22
0 (
32
.1)
11
2 (
17
.0)
62
 (9
.3)
Hi
gh
er
15
1 (
39
.8)
12
6 (
34
.4)
64
 (1
5.5
)
27
 (5
.6)
M
ar
ita
l s
ta
tu
s
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.0
02
Cu
rre
nt
ly
 m
ar
rie
d/
un
io
n
11
19
 (4
1.8
)
92
4 (
34
.0)
49
8 (
18
.9)
19
3 (
7.6
)
Se
pa
ra
ted
/d
ivo
rc
ed
14
5 (
62
.6)
12
9 (
56
.6)
81
 (3
4.1
)
44
 (1
4.4
)
Em
pl
oy
m
en
t
0.6
53
0.2
70
0.2
32
0.9
83
No
26
 (4
7.4
)
18
 (2
7.7
)
16
 (2
8.3
)
5 (
8.3
)
Ye
s
12
38
 (4
3.6
)
10
35
 (3
6.0
)
56
3 (
20
.1)
23
2 (
8.2
)
W
ea
lth
 in
de
x
0.6
34
0.6
87
0.3
11
0.1
58
Po
or
es
t
27
4 (
41
.2)
22
9 (
34
.2)
12
4 (
18
.3)
35
 (5
.0)
Po
or
er
28
1 (
44
.4)
22
8 (
34
.4)
14
4 (
23
.6)
58
 (1
0.0
)
M
id
dl
e
25
8 (
45
.9)
21
5 (
38
.4)
11
8 (
20
.9)
47
 (8
.4)
Ri
ch
er
24
9 (
45
.0)
21
1 (
37
.4)
10
6 (
20
.7)
51
 (8
.9)
Ri
ch
es
t
20
2 (
41
.4)
17
0 (
34
.8)
87
 (1
7.6
)
46
 (8
.6)
No
. o
f c
hi
ld
re
n
0.6
24
0.2
83
0.2
50
0.1
89
575
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
p
Se
xu
al
p
0
64
 (4
2.7
)
46
 (2
8.9
)
30
 (2
3.0
)
17
 (9
.8)
1
59
1 (
42
.6)
49
0 (
35
.8)
25
9 (
18
.4)
12
8 (
9.2
)
5+
60
9 (
44
.8)
51
7 (
36
.9)
29
0 (
21
.7)
92
 (7
.0)
Sm
ok
in
g
< 
0.0
01
0.0
00
1
0.0
00
1
0.2
65
Do
es
 no
t s
m
ok
e
10
37
 (4
1.3
)
86
1 (
33
.9)
46
4 (
18
.4)
19
4 (
8.0
)
So
m
e d
ay
s
50
 (5
3.6
)
44
 (4
5.5
)
27
 (3
2.1
)
10
 (6
.7)
Ev
er
yd
ay
17
7 (
59
.7)
14
8 (
49
.8)
88
 (3
1.5
)
92
 (1
0.8
)
Nu
m
be
r o
f w
iv
es
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.0
08
0 (
Di
vo
rc
ed
/S
ep
ar
ate
d)
14
5 (
62
.6)
12
9 (
56
.6)
81
 (3
4.1
)
44
 (1
4.4
)
1
91
9 (
41
.3)
76
2 (
33
.4)
40
2 (
18
.3)
16
2 (
7.8
)
2+
20
0 (
45
.3)
16
2 (
37
.1)
96
 (2
2.6
)
31
 (6
.9)
No
. o
f s
ex
 p
ar
tn
er
s
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.0
00
3
No
ne
89
4 (
39
.6)
73
8 (
32
.2)
40
4 (
17
.9)
14
8 (
7.0
)
On
e o
r m
or
e
37
0 (
58
.8)
31
5 (
50
.0)
17
5 (
29
.1)
89
 (1
2.7
)
G
iv
en
 g
ift
s f
or
 se
x
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.0
00
1
No
11
65
 (4
2.4
)
97
0 (
34
.9)
52
8 (
19
.3)
20
7 (
7.7
)
Ye
s
99
 (6
5.5
)
83
 (5
5.5
)
51
 (3
8.3
)
27
 (1
8.4
)
Af
ra
id
 o
f w
ife
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
Ne
ve
r
85
5 (
37
.3)
70
6 (
30
.7)
34
0 (
15
.3)
14
6 (
6.2
)
So
m
eti
m
es
34
2 (
65
.2)
28
8 (
53
.0)
19
1 (
36
.3)
74
 (1
4.5
)
M
os
t o
f t
he
 ti
m
e
67
 (8
2.5
)
59
 (7
2.3
)
48
 (5
7.0
)
17
 (2
3.5
)
Fa
th
er
 b
ea
t m
ot
he
r
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.0
00
4
0.3
41
No
57
3 (
38
.0)
46
8 (
31
.0)
25
6 (
17
.1)
10
3 (
7.4
)
Ye
s
60
5 (
50
.1)
51
3 (
41
.4)
26
9 (
23
.0)
11
7 (
9.3
)
576 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Ta
bl
e 
2 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
p
Se
xu
al
p
Do
n’t
 kn
ow
86
 (5
0.0
)
72
 (4
2.3
)
54
 (2
9.6
)
17
 (8
.2)
W
ife
 d
ri
nk
s a
lc
oh
ol
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
0.5
81
No
91
3 (
39
.3)
75
0 (
31
.8)
37
1 (
16
.3)
18
0 (
8.1
)
Ye
s
35
1 (
62
.5)
30
3 (
54
.0)
20
8 (
37
.6)
57
 (8
.9)
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y 
of
 w
ife
 b
ei
ng
 d
ru
nk
0.0
03
0.1
47
< 
0.0
01
0.0
06
Ne
ve
r
74
 (5
1.4
)
70
 (4
8.3
)
25
 (1
9.0
)
6 (
3.1
)
So
m
eti
m
es
21
8 (
63
.9)
18
1 (
54
.0)
14
0 (
41
.3)
38
 (9
.9)
Of
ten
59
 (7
9.9
)
52
 (6
6.0
)
43
 (5
9.7
)
13
 (1
6.5
)
Bi
-d
ire
ct
io
na
l v
io
le
nc
e*
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
No
80
9 (
35
.9)
65
7 (
28
.6)
32
7 (
14
.5)
14
5 (
6.6
)
Ye
s
45
5 (
71
.1)
39
6 (
62
.1)
25
2 (
40
.5)
92
 (1
3.9
)
C
on
tro
lli
ng
 b
eh
av
io
ur
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
< 
0.0
01
No
11
6 (
18
.2)
75
 (1
0.9
)
56
 (9
.3)
14
 (1
.5)
Ye
s
11
48
 (5
1.1
)
97
8 (
43
.3)
52
3 (
23
.4)
22
3 (
10
.2)
Es
tim
ate
s p
re
se
nt
ed
 ar
e u
nw
eig
ht
ed
 nu
m
be
rs 
(w
eig
ht
ed
 pe
rc
en
t),
 an
d c
hi
 sq
ua
re
 p 
va
lu
es
*H
ur
t w
ife
/p
ar
tn
er
 w
he
n s
he
 w
as
 no
t h
ur
tin
g t
he
 m
ale
 re
sp
on
de
nt
577
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
Ta
bl
e 
3 
 U
ni
va
ria
te 
m
od
els
 (U
na
dj
us
ted
 O
dd
s R
ati
os
) o
f m
ale
s w
ho
 re
po
rt 
ex
pe
rie
nc
in
g i
nt
im
ate
 pa
rtn
er
 vi
ol
en
ce
 in
 U
ga
nd
a (
20
16
)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
95
%C
I
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
95
%C
I
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
95
%C
I
p
Se
xu
al
95
%C
I
p
Ag
e
15
−2
4
1
1
1
1
25
−3
4
0.9
9
0.7
3, 
1.3
3
0.9
43
1.2
3
0.8
9, 
1.6
9
0.2
10
1.0
4
0.6
9, 
1.5
7
0.8
44
0.7
9
0.5
0, 
1.2
5
0.3
19
35
−4
4
1.1
2
0.8
2, 
1.5
3
0.4
72
1.5
1
1.1
0, 
2.0
6
0.0
10
0.9
6
0.6
3, 
1.4
6
0.8
52
0.5
4
0.3
3, 
0.8
8
0.0
14
45
−5
4
0.9
3
0.6
6, 
1.3
1
0.6
62
1.0
7
0.7
5, 
1.5
1
0.7
24
1.2
7
0.8
1, 
1.9
8
0.2
98
0.5
5
0.3
2, 
0.9
6
0.0
35
Re
si
de
nc
e
Ru
ra
l
1.0
4
0.8
1, 
1.3
4
0.7
63
0.9
6
0.7
6, 
1.2
3
0.8
47
1.1
5
0.8
5, 
1.5
6
0.3
61
0.8
8
0.5
8, 
1.3
3
0.5
46
Ur
ba
n
1
1
1
1
Ed
uc
at
io
n
No
 ed
uc
ati
on
1
1
1
1
Pr
im
ar
y
1.2
8
0.7
7, 
2.1
2
0.3
40
1.1
7
0.7
1, 
1.9
2
0.5
36
0.9
9
0.5
9, 
1.6
9
0.9
74
1.3
4
0.6
2, 
2.8
7
0.4
53
Se
co
nd
ar
y
1.0
7
0.6
3, 
1.8
3
0.8
03
0.9
0
0.5
3, 
1.5
4
0.7
08
0.7
1
0.4
0, 
1.2
4
0.2
27
1.4
8
0.6
6, 
3.2
9
0.3
41
Hi
gh
er
1.0
0
0.5
6, 
1.7
9
0.9
97
1.0
0
0.5
6, 
1.7
9
0.9
99
0.6
3
0.3
4, 
1.1
6
0.1
40
0.8
5
0.3
6, 
2.0
3
0.7
18
M
ar
ita
l s
ta
tu
s
M
ar
rie
d/
 un
io
n
1
1
1
1
Se
pa
ra
ted
/ d
ivo
rc
ed
2.3
3
1.6
5, 
3.2
8
< 
0.0
01
2.5
3
1.7
9, 
3.5
9
< 
0.0
01
2.2
2
1.5
4, 
3.1
8
< 
0.0
01
2.0
4
1.3
0, 
3.2
0
0.0
02
Em
pl
oy
m
en
t
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
0.8
6
0.4
4, 
1.6
7
0.6
53
1.4
7
0.7
4, 
2.9
2
0.2
72
0.6
4
0.3
0, 
1.3
4
0.2
36
0.9
9
0.3
3, 
2.9
7
0.9
83
W
ea
lth
 in
de
x
Po
or
es
t
1
1
1
1
Po
or
er
1.1
4
0.8
7, 
1.5
0
0.3
37
1.0
1
0.7
7, 
1.3
2
0.9
49
1.3
7
0.9
8, 
1.9
2
0.0
61
2.1
2
1.2
3, 
3.6
6
0.0
07
M
id
dl
e
1.2
1
0.9
1, 
1.6
1
0.1
85
1.2
0
0.8
9, 
1.6
0
0.2
29
1.1
8
0.8
4, 
1.6
5
0.3
48
1.7
4
1.0
0, 
3.0
0
0.0
49
Ri
ch
er
1.1
7
0.8
7, 
1.5
7
0.3
09
1.1
5
0.8
4, 
1.5
6
0.3
79
1.1
7
0.8
2, 
1.6
7
0.4
00
1.8
6
1.0
7, 
3.2
3
0.0
28
Ri
ch
es
t
1.0
1
0.7
3, 
1.3
9
0.9
55
1.0
2
0.7
4, 
1.4
2
0.8
91
0.9
5
0.4
4, 
1.4
1
0.7
92
1.8
0
1.0
0, 
3.2
3
0.0
48
No
. c
hi
ld
re
n
578 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Ta
bl
e 
3 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
95
%C
I
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
95
%C
I
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
95
%C
I
p
Se
xu
al
95
%C
I
p
0
1
1
1
1
1
0.9
9
0.6
7, 
1.4
8
0.9
78
1.3
7
0.8
5, 
2.2
1
0.1
95
0.7
5
0.4
3, 
1.3
1
0.3
18
0.9
4
0.4
9, 
1.8
1
0.8
51
5+
1.0
9
0.7
3, 
1.6
4
0.6
74
1.4
4
0.9
0, 
2.3
1
0.1
32
0.9
3
0.5
3, 
1.6
1
0.7
85
0.6
9
0.3
6, 
1.3
4
0.2
75
Sm
ok
in
g 
sta
tu
s
Do
es
 no
t s
m
ok
e
1
1
1
1
So
m
e d
ay
s
1.6
4
0.9
5, 
2.8
3
0.0
74
1.6
3
0.9
5, 
2.8
1
0.0
78
2.1
0
1.0
7, 
4.0
9
0.0
30
0.8
3
0.3
8, 
1.8
2
0.6
34
Ev
er
yd
ay
2.1
0
1.5
7, 
2.8
2
< 
0.0
01
1.9
4
1.4
6, 
2.5
7
< 
0.0
01
2.0
4
1.4
9, 
2.7
9
< 
0.0
01
1.4
0
0.8
8, 
2.2
4
0.1
58
No
. o
f w
iv
es
0 (
Di
vo
rc
ed
/S
ep
ar
ate
d)
1
1
1
1
1
0.4
2
0.3
0, 
0.5
9
< 
0.0
01
0.3
9
0.2
7, 
0.5
5
< 
0.0
01
0.4
3
0.3
0, 
0.6
2
< 
0.0
01
0.5
0
0.3
2, 
0.7
9
0.0
03
2+
0.5
0
0.3
3, 
0.7
4
0.0
01
0.4
5
0.3
0, 
0.6
8
< 
0.0
01
0.5
6
0.3
5, 
0.9
0
0.0
16
0.4
4
0.2
3, 
0.8
3
0.0
12
No
. o
f s
ex
 p
ar
tn
er
s
No
ne
1
1
1
1
On
e o
r m
or
e
2.1
7
1.7
4, 
2.7
1
< 
0.0
01
2.1
1
1.7
0, 
2.6
2
< 
0.0
01
1.8
8
1.4
7, 
2.4
1
< 
0.0
01
1.9
2
1.3
5, 
2.7
4
< 
0.0
01
G
iv
en
 g
ift
s f
or
 se
x
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
2.5
8
1.6
7, 
4.0
0
< 
0.0
01
2.3
4
1.5
5, 
3.5
2
< 
0.0
01
2.6
0
1.6
7, 
4.0
5
< 
0.0
01
2.7
3
1.6
4, 
4.5
5
< 
0.0
01
Af
ra
id
 o
f w
ife
Ne
ve
r
1
1
1
1
So
m
eti
m
es
3.1
5
2.4
4, 
4.0
8
< 
0.0
01
2.5
4
2.0
0, 
3.2
4
< 
0.0
01
3.1
6
2.4
1, 
4.1
4
< 
0.0
01
2.5
6
1.8
0, 
3.6
4
< 
0.0
01
M
os
t o
f t
he
 ti
m
e
7.9
4
4.3
9, 
14
.37
< 
0.0
01
5.8
9
3.2
1, 
10
.80
< 
0.0
01
7.3
7
4.2
4, 
12
.79
< 
0.0
01
4.6
2
2.4
5, 
8.7
1
< 
0.0
01
Fa
th
er
 b
ea
t m
ot
he
r
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
1.6
4
1.3
4, 
2.0
0
< 
0.0
01
1.5
7
1.2
9, 
1.9
2
< 
0.0
01
1.4
5
1.1
5, 
1.8
4
0.0
02
1.2
9
0.8
9, 
1.8
5
0.1
74
579
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
Ta
bl
e 
3 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
95
%C
I
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
95
%C
I
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
95
%C
I
p
Se
xu
al
95
%C
I
p
Do
n’t
 kn
ow
1.6
3
1.0
9, 
2.4
3
0.0
18
1.6
3
1.0
8, 
2.4
6
0.0
20
2.0
5
1.3
2, 
3.1
8
0.0
01
1.1
2
0.5
8, 
2.1
7
0.7
39
W
ife
 d
ri
nk
s a
lc
oh
ol
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
2.5
8
2.0
3, 
3.2
8
< 
0.0
01
2.5
1
1.9
9, 
3.1
8
< 
0.0
01
3.1
0
2.4
1, 
4.0
0
< 
0.0
01
1.1
2
0.7
6, 
1.6
5
0.5
81
Fr
eq
ue
nc
y 
of
 w
ife
 b
ei
ng
 d
ru
nk
Ne
ve
r
1
1
1
1
So
m
eti
m
es
1.6
7
1.0
7, 
2.6
2
0.0
25
1.2
6
0.8
0, 
1.9
8
0.3
23
3.0
0
1.7
1, 
5.2
6
< 
0.0
01
3.3
9
1.2
4, 
9.3
2
0.0
18
Of
ten
3.7
6
1.5
9, 
8.9
0
0.0
03
2.0
8
0.9
4, 
4.6
1
0.0
70
6.3
1
3.0
0, 
13
.28
< 
0.0
01
6.0
9
1.9
9, 
18
.63
0.0
02
Bi
-d
ire
ct
io
na
l v
io
le
nc
e*
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
4.3
9
3.4
7, 
5.5
6
< 
0.0
01
4.1
0
3.2
5, 
5.1
6
< 
0.0
01
4.0
0
3.1
9, 
5.0
3
< 
0.0
01
2.2
8
1.6
0, 
3.2
6
< 
0.0
01
C
on
tro
lli
ng
 b
eh
av
io
ur
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
4.7
6
3.5
9, 
6.2
9
< 
0.0
01
6.2
6
4.5
7, 
8.5
9
< 
0.0
01
2.9
8
2.0
4, 
4.3
4
< 
0.0
01
7.5
3
4.2
0, 
13
.49
< 
0.0
01
*H
ur
t w
ife
/p
ar
tn
er
 w
he
n s
he
 w
as
 no
t h
ur
tin
g t
he
 m
ale
 re
sp
on
de
nt
p =
 p 
va
lu
e
95
%C
I =
 95
% 
Co
nfi
de
nc
e I
nt
er
va
ls
580 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Ta
bl
e 
4 
 M
ul
tiv
ar
iab
le 
m
od
el 
(A
dj
us
ted
 O
dd
s R
ati
os
) o
f m
ale
s w
ho
 re
po
rte
d e
xp
er
ien
cin
g i
nt
im
ate
 pa
rtn
er
 vi
ol
en
ce
 in
 U
ga
nd
a (
20
16
)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
95
%C
I
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
95
%C
I
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
95
%C
I
p
Se
xu
al
95
%C
I
p
Af
ra
id
 o
f w
ife
Ne
ve
r
1
1
1
1
So
m
eti
m
es
2.6
9
2.0
5, 
3.5
2
< 
0.0
01
2.1
2
1.6
4, 
2.7
2
< 
0.0
01
2.6
3
2.0
0, 
3.4
7
< 
0.0
01
2.1
0
1.4
6, 
3.0
2
< 
0.0
01
M
os
t o
f t
he
 ti
m
e
5.1
0
2.9
1, 
8,9
6
< 
0.0
01
4.2
8
2.5
0, 
7.3
1
< 
0.0
01
4.9
9
2.9
1, 
8.5
3
< 
0.0
01
3.5
9
1.8
7, 
6.9
1
< 
0.0
01
Bi
-d
ire
ct
io
na
l v
io
le
nc
e*
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
3.2
0
2.4
9, 
4.1
2
< 
0.0
01
2.9
9
2.3
3, 
3.8
4
< 
0.0
01
2.9
9
2.3
6, 
3.7
8
< 
0.0
01
1.8
7
1.2
9, 
2.7
1
0.0
01
C
on
tro
lli
ng
 b
eh
av
io
ur
No
1
1
1
1
Ye
s
3.8
0
2.8
4, 
5.0
7
< 
0.0
01
4.9
3
3.5
7, 
6.8
1
< 
0.0
01
2.0
3
1.3
8, 
2.9
8
< 
0.0
01
5.7
3
3.1
4, 
10
.46
< 
0.0
01
Fa
th
er
 b
ea
t m
ot
he
r
No
1
1
1
Ye
s
1.3
3
1.0
6, 
1.6
6
0.0
13
1.2
8
1.0
2, 
1.6
0
0.0
32
1.1
3
0.8
7, 
1.4
7
0.3
50
NA
Do
n’t
 kn
ow
1.4
1
0.9
2, 
2.1
7
0.1
16
1.4
6
0.9
4, 
2.2
5
0.0
92
1.8
8
1.1
7, 
3.0
2
0.0
09
W
ife
 d
ri
nk
s a
lc
oh
ol
No
1
1
1
Ye
s
1.8
5
1.4
0, 
2.4
5
< 
0.0
01
1.8
3
1.3
9, 
2.4
1
< 
0.0
01
2.2
9
1.7
4, 
3.0
1
< 
0.0
01
NA
Nu
m
be
r o
f s
ex
 p
ar
tn
er
s
No
ne
1
1
1
On
e o
r m
or
e
1.4
2
1.1
1, 
1.8
2
0.0
04
1.4
1
1.1
0, 
1.8
1
0.0
07
1.2
5
0.9
5, 
1.6
4
0.1
08
NA
M
ar
ita
l s
ta
tu
s
Cu
rre
nt
ly
 m
ar
rie
d/
un
io
n
1
1
1
Se
pa
ra
ted
/ d
ivo
rc
ed
1.6
1
1.0
9, 
2.3
8
0.0
17
1.9
4
1.3
3, 
2.8
2
0.0
01
1.5
7
1.0
7, 
2.2
6
0.0
25
1.6
4
0.9
8, 
2.7
4
0.0
58
Ag
e
15
–2
4
1
1
25
–3
4
NA
1.3
7
0.9
8, 
1.9
2
0.0
66
NA
0.7
7
0.4
6, 
1.2
9
0.3
22
581
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
Ta
bl
e 
4 
 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
Va
ria
bl
e
Al
l I
PV
95
%C
I
p
Ps
yc
ho
lo
gi
ca
l
95
%C
I
p
Ph
ys
ica
l
95
%C
I
p
Se
xu
al
95
%C
I
p
35
–4
4
1.7
7
1.2
6, 
2.4
7
0.0
01
0.5
2
0.3
0, 
0.9
0
0.0
19
45
–5
4
1.2
6
0.8
6, 
1.8
5
0.2
41
0.5
6
0.3
1, 
1.0
3
0.0
61
Sm
ok
in
g
Do
es
 no
t s
m
ok
e
1
So
m
e d
ay
s
1.3
1
0.6
4, 
2.6
5
0.4
32
NA
NA
NA
Ev
er
yd
ay
1.5
0
1.0
9, 
2.0
6
0.0
14
Em
pl
oy
m
en
t
No
1
Ye
s
NA
2.7
0
1.2
9, 
5.6
6
0.0
08
NA
NA
W
ea
lth
 in
de
x
Po
or
es
t
1
1
1
Po
or
er
1.2
5
0.9
4, 
1.6
7
0.1
29
NA
1.4
7
1.0
2, 
2.1
2
0.0
38
2.2
6
1.3
2, 
3.8
9
0.0
03
M
id
dl
e
1.4
3
1.0
5, 
1.9
6
0.0
25
1.2
5
0.8
6, 
1.8
2
0.2
36
1.8
4
1.0
5, 
3.2
1
0.0
32
Ri
ch
er
1.2
9
0.9
3, 
1.8
0
0.1
29
1.1
9
0.8
1, 
1.7
4
0.3
68
1.8
5
1.0
3, 
3.3
0
0.0
39
Ri
ch
es
t
1.1
8
0.8
3, 
1.6
9
0.3
47
1.1
0
0.7
2, 
1.6
6
0.6
64
2.1
5
1.1
9, 
3.8
8
0.0
11
*H
ur
t w
ife
/p
ar
tn
er
 w
he
n s
he
 w
as
 no
t h
ur
tin
g t
he
 m
ale
 re
sp
on
de
nt
p =
 p 
va
lu
e
95
%C
I =
 95
% 
Co
nfi
de
nc
e I
nt
er
va
ls
NA
 re
pr
es
en
ts 
no
t a
pp
lic
ab
le 
fo
r e
xa
m
pl
e, 
th
e v
ar
iab
les
 no
t i
nc
lu
de
d i
n t
he
 fi
na
l m
ul
tiv
ar
iab
le 
m
od
el
582 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
7.31) and bi-directional violence (OR 2.99, 95% CI 2.33, 3.84). Employed respond-
ents were more likely to experience psychological violence (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.29, 
5.66), and those between 35−44 years (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.26, 2.47).
The factors associated with physical violence were being afraid most of the time 
(OR 4.99, 95% CI 2.91, 8.53), bi-directional violence (OR 2.99, 95%2.36, 3.78) and 
the wife/partner drinking alcohol (OR 2.29, 95% CI 1.74, 3.01). On the other hand, 
sexual violence was associated with controlling behaviour (OR 5.73, 95% CI 3.14, 
10.46), and being afraid of the wife most of the time (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.87, 6.91). 
Respondents from the higher wealth indices were also more likely to experience 
sexual violence compared to the poorest index. Additionally, the age group (35−44) 
were less likely to experience sexual violence compared to those 15−24 years of 
age.
Discussion
Overall, the lifetime prevalence of all forms of IPV among males in Uganda was 
44% and 31% during the 12 months preceding the survey. The factors associated 
with all forms of IPV included being afraid of their partners, controlling behaviour 
from the partners and bi-directional violence by hurting the partner when she was 
not hurting him. IPV has been more commonly studied among females compared 
to males. Based on the high prevalence which - close to half of the selected male 
respondents, it is evident that this a subject that is less frequently addressed among 
males.
The lifetime prevalence of IPV was higher than that reported in Tanza-
nia and the US ranging from 7 to 34.8% (Coker et al., 2002; Mulawa et al. 2016; 
Tjaden  & Thoennes 2000). The high rates could be attributed to the high prevalence 
of witnessing parental violence and controlling behaviour. In this study, approxi-
mately, 40% of the males had witnessed parental violence while in other studies the 
estimate has ranged from 36 to 52% (Gubi et al. 2020; Kwagala et al. 2013). Moreo-
ver, approximately three quarters of the selected respondents had experienced con-
trolling behaviour from their partners. A combination of exposure to these factors 
may have influenced the higher prevalence of IPV observed.
Regarding the three forms of violence, psychological violence had the highest 
prevalence which is consistent with other studies (Costa et  al., 2015; Ferraresso, 
2020). Rates of psychological violence were also higher than reported in studies 
from Europe, the United States and South Korea (Coker et al., 2002; Costa et al., 
2015; Ferraresso, 2020). Psychological violence may be higher among males as the 
female perpetrators are more likely to report psychological aggression and may be 
less inclined to inflict bodily harm and injuries on their intimate partners (Carmo 
et al., 2011; Karakurt  & Silver, 2013). Furthermore, due to prevailing societal and 
gender norms, it is more socially acceptable for females to engage in verbal aggres-
sion rather than physical aggression (Karakurt  & Silver, 2013).
Physical violence was the second most prevalent form of IPV which was higher 
than rates observed in Europe, (except Athens at 31.2%), United States and South 
Korea (Coker et  al., 2002; Costa et  al., 2015; Ferraresso, 2020). This is however 
583
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
inconsistent with a study from Tanzania that found sexual violence as the second 
most prevalent form of IPV among males at 11.1%, after psychological violence 
(Mulawa et al., 2016). The difference could be due to the study settings. The Tan-
zania study was conducted in Dar es Salaam which is largest city in the country and 
thus represented the prevalence in only an urban setting. This study used data that 
was derived from a national representative sample of the entire country, whose sur-
vey population is largely rural.
Bidirectional violence was a major risk factor for IPV as reported in other studies 
(Costa et al., 2015; Ferraresso, 2020; Hamel  & Russell, 2012; Powney  & Graham-
Kevan, 2019). For example, more than half of the selected study population who 
experienced IPV and psychological violence (71% and 62% respectively) admit-
ted to perpetrating violence against their partners. This is higher than reported in a 
review of studies (49–57.9%) (Hamel  & Russell, 2012; Powney  & Graham-Kevan, 
2019) which is a high prevalence nonetheless. A number of male victims may 
equally be perpetrators of IPV within their settings (Bates, 2016; Coker et al., 2002; 
Mulawa et al., 2016). The implication is that preventive efforts to tackle IPV may 
need to target couples to break the cycle of violence as the victims may equally have 
been perpetrators.
Being afraid of their respective partners was also associated with IPV as docu-
mented in the United Kingdom (Taylor et al., 2021). This has also been reported as 
a factor in studies conducted among females (Kwagala et al., 2013; Wandera et al., 
2015). Fear of partners is normally associated with past behaviours from a partner 
that could have arisen through threats or fear of bodily injuries in order to exert 
power or control in a relationship. Men who have expressed fear of their partners are 
less likely to seek help (Powney  & Graham-Kevan, 2019; Taylor et al., 2021). The 
factors associated with fear in men include being scared of retaliation, fear of the 
female abusers falsely claiming to be the victim to law enforcement or peers, fear of 
ultimately being rejected by their family and children as well as fear for their well-
being (Taylor et al., 2021). Although it is anticipated that men may not be afraid of 
their partners, this may not entirely be the case considering the percentage of men 
who were afraid of their partners in our study.
Controlling behaviour from the males’ partners was also associated with all forms 
of IPV as reported in other studies (Ferraresso, 2020; Gubi et al., 2020). Controlling 
behaviour constitutes but is not limited to threats, intimidation, destruction of prop-
erty, isolation of victims, exerting control over finances and legal abuse (Ferraresso, 
2020; Powney et al., 2021). Controlling behaviour can be harmful to the victims as 
it is associated with mental distress, alcohol use, substance abuse and reduced self-
confidence (Powney et al., 2021).
The age group 25-34 years had a lower odds of experiencing sexual violence 
compared to those younger than 25, which is similar to a study conducted among 
females in Uganda (Gubi et al., 2020). The older age groups 35-54 were also less 
likely to experience sexual violence although it was not statistically significant. With 
the more recent exposure to social media and digital technology, sexual communica-
tion has become more common among young adults. Drouin et al. found that sexual 
coercion was associated with sexual violence and similar proportions were observed 
among males and females (Drouin et  al., 2015). The sexual coercion involved 
584 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
making respondents feel obligated or due to persistent requests to go ahead with 
unwanted things (Drouin et  al., 2015). Given the increasing use of technology, a 
preventive measure to reduce the occurrence of sexual violence among the younger 
generation would require strengthened and comprehensive sex education target-
ing both boys and girls to minimise perpetration and improve assertiveness for the 
potential victims.
All the wealthier respondents were more likely to report sexual IPV compared to 
the poorest in our study. Considering that wealthier people are more likely to access 
health information (Tang et al., 2019), it is possible that they are more enlightened 
about IPV and are therefore confident to acknowledge their experiences with it com-
pared to their less empowered counterparts. Based on this, our findings could be 
more reflective of a reporting pattern than the actual experience of male IPV in our 
study population.
Other factors that have typically been associated with IPV among females were 
not associated with male IPV in this study. For example, the level of education 
was not associated with any form of IPV. This is similar to a study among males in 
which education was not associated with IPV in Tanzania and South Korea (Fer-
raresso, 2020; Mulawa et al., 2016), while males with incomplete primary education 
in Rwanda were more likely to experience psychological violence (Umubyeyi et al., 
2014). Women with lower education attainment are more likely to report IPV in 
studies from Uganda and Rwanda (Gubi et al., 2020; Umubyeyi et al., 2014). Males 
may be less inclined to report IPV experiences due to fear of ridicule and cultural 
norms that expect them to be brave (Umubyeyi et al., 2014).
In our study, males who were employed had a higher risk of psychological vio-
lence which was consistent with a South Korean study (Ferraresso, 2020). However, 
females with professional employment status had a lower risk of physical violence 
in another Ugandan study (Kwagala et al., 2013). The number of children has been 
associated with IPV among females (Gubi et al., 2020; Kwagala et al., 2013) but not 
in our study. It is considered more of a woman’s responsibility to look after children 
within the sub Saharan African context. Therefore, the they are likely to remain in 
an abusive relationship for the sake of the children. Thus, the risk factors of violence 
among females may necessarily not be the same among males.
Strengths and limitations
Strengths: The study contributes significant knowledge on intimate violence among 
males in sub Saharan Africa. There is a paucity of information on the subject among 
males as it tends to get overlooked in comparison to females. While we acknowledge 
that there is an imbalance in terms of limited access to resources among females 
which predisposes them to IPV, the prevalence rates in this study indicate that males 
are also predisposed to violence. Another strength is that the study was conducted 
among a nationally representative sample of the Ugandan population, thus the rates 
are generalisable to the country. Limitations: Considering that IPV among males is 
often stigmatised, denied or ridiculed and could be under-reported due to cultural 
norms (Carmo et al., 2011; Karakurt  & Silver, 2013; Umubyeyi et al., 2014), it is 
585
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
possible that the estimate presented may be conservative and influenced by reporting 
bias. Secondly, the cross-sectional survey by design is unable to establish causal-
ity, therefore it was not possible to determine the factors that caused the violence. 
Thirdly, the questions used in this study about the experience of IPV were asked 
from persons who were currently or formerly in a union but not from those who had 
never married or had not lived together as a couple. Spousal violence is not only 
limited to couples who live together. Therefore the prevalence of IPV within males 
who had never lived together as a couple was not estimated in this study, although 
it is possible this demographic has experienced violence through dating and it is 
important to have their experiences captured.
Conclusion
Two out of five males have  experienced IPV in Uganda. Major factors include 
feeling afraid of the partner, perpetrating the violence and exposure to controlling 
behaviour from the partner. Preventive measures aimed at addressing IPV at the 
community level may benefit by targeting couples and the inclusion of men in IPV 
prevention initiatives. Further research on IPV experience among men may be war-
ranted given the high numbers of men who experience it and who appear to be less 
likely to seek help.   
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https:// doi. 
org/ 10. 1007/ s10935- 022- 00683-2.
Acknowledgements Author AA was supported by the EDCTP/TDR Clinical Research and Development 
Fellowship Program, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland; a grant from The John Harvey 
Lowery Foundation, USA; and the University of Turku Joint Research Grant Fund, Finland. Author 
MLW was funded by a grant from the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung, Bonn, Germany. We would also 
like to thank the study participants, and fellow researchers who participated in collecting and compiling 
data. Without their active participation, this study would not have been possible.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Compliance With Ethical Standards 
Conflict of Interest All authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, 
which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as 
you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com-
mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article 
are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the 
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is 
not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission 
directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen 
ses/ by/4. 0/.
586 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
References
Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: a meta-analytic review. 
Psychological Bulletin, 126(5), 651.
Archer, K. J., & Lemeshow, S. (2006). Goodness-of-fit test for a logistic regression model fitted using 
survey sample data. Stata Journal, 6(1), 97–105. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15368 67X06 00600 106
Ashburn, K., Kerner, B., Ojamuge, D., & Lundgren, R. (2017). Evaluation of the responsible, engaged, 
and loving (real) fathers initiative on physical child punishment and intimate partner violence in 
northern uganda. Prevention Science, 18(7), 854–864.
Bates, E. A. (2016). Current controversies within intimate partner violence: Overlooking bidirectional 
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 31(8), 937–940.
Bates, E. A. (2020). No one would ever believe me: An exploration of the impact of intimate partner vio-
lence victimization on men. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 21(4), 497.
Breiding, M. J. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner 
violence victimization—national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, united states, 2011. 
Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, DC: 2002), 63 (8), 1.
Breiding, M. J., Black, M. C., & Ryan, G. W. (2008). Prevalence and risk factors of intimate partner 
violence in eighteen us states/territories, 2005. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(2), 
112–118.
Busch, A. L., & Rosenberg, M. S. (2004). Comparing women and men arrested for domestic violence: A 
preliminary report. Journal of Family Violence, 19(1), 49–57.
Carbone-López, K., Kruttschnitt, C., & Macmillan, R. (2006). Patterns of intimate partner violence and 
their associations with physical health, psychological distress, and substance use. Public Health 
Reports, 121(4), 382–392.
Carmo, R., Grams, A., & Magalhães, T. (2011). Men as victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of 
Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18(8), 355–359.
Chen, M., & Chan, K. L. (2021). Characteristics of intimate partner violence in china: Gender symmetry, 
mutuality, and associated factors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13), 6867–6889.
Coker, A. L., Davis, K. E., Arias, I., Desai, S., Sanderson, M., Brandt, H. M., & Smith, P. H. (2002). 
Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Jour-
nal of Preventive Medicine, 23(4), 260–268.
Costa, D., Soares, J., Lindert, J., Hatzidimitriadou, E., Sundin, E., Toth, O., & Barros, H. (2015). Intimate 
partner violence: A study in men and women from six European countries. International Journal of 
Public Health, 60(4), 467–478.
Cunradi, C. B., Caetano, R., & Schafer, J. (2002). Socioeconomic predictors of intimate partner violence 
among white, black, and hispanic couples in the United States. Journal of Family Violence, 17(4), 
377–389.
Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y., Garcia-Moreno, C., Petzold, M., Child, J. C., Falder, G., et al. (2013). The 
global prevalence of intimate partner violence against women. Science, 340, 1527–1528.
Douglas, E. M., & Hines, D. A. (2011). The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate part-
ner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of Family Violence, 
26(6), 473–485.
Drouin, M., Ross, J., & Tobin, E. (2015, September). Sexting: A new, digital vehicle for intimate partner 
aggression? Computers in Human Behavior, 50 , 197–204. Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. 
chb. 2015. 04. 001
Ferraresso, R. (2020, March). Risk and protective factors associated with intimate partner violence in a 
nationally representative sample of korean men. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, 
53 (2), 135–142. Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 3961/ jpmph. 19. 292
Gubi, D., Nansubuga, E., & Wandera, S. O. (2020). Correlates of intimate partner violence among mar-
ried women in Uganda: A cross-sectional survey. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–11.
Hamel, J., & Russell, B. L. (2012). Perceptions of female offenders (2013rd ed.; B. Russell, Ed.). New 
York, NY: Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-1- 4614- 5871-5
Hine, B., Wallace, S., & Bates, E. A. (2021). Understanding the profile and needs of abused men: explor-
ing call data from a male domestic violence charity in the united kingdom. Journal of interpersonal 
violence, 08862605211028014.
587
1 3
Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588 
Hines, D. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2009). Women’s use of intimate partner violence against men: Preva-
lence, implications, and consequences. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 18(6), 
572–586.
ICF. The DHS Program - Uganda: Standard DHS. Funded by USAID. (2016). Retrieved from https:// 
www. dhspr ogram. com/ metho dology/ survey/ survey- displ ay- 504. cfm ([Accessed online 23. Apr. 
2021])
Karakurt, G., & Silver, K. E. (2013). Emotional abuse in intimate relationships: The role of gender and 
age. Violence and Victims, 28 (5), 804–821. Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 1891/ 0886- 6708. 
vv-d- 12- 00041
King, K., Murray, C. E., Crowe, A., Hunnicutt, G., Lundgren, K., & Olson, L. (2017). The costs of recov-
ery: Intimate partner violence survivors’ experiences of financial recovery from abuse. The Family 
Journal, 25(3), 230–238.
KNBS, of Statistics, K. N. B., of Health/Kenya, M., Council/Kenya, N. A. C., Institute, K. M. R., for 
Population Development/Kenya, N. C., & International, I. (2015, Dec). Kenya Demographic and 
Health Survey 2014. Retrieved from https:// dhspr ogram. com/ publi catio ns/ publi cation- fr308- dhs- 
final- repor ts. cfm ([Online; accessed 2. Apr. 2021])
Krug, E. G., Mercy, J. A., Dahlberg, L. L., & Zwi, A. B. (2002, Oct). The world report on violence and 
health. Lancet, 360 (9339), 1083–1088. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0140- 6736(02) 11133-0
Kwagala, B., Wandera, S. O., Ndugga, P., & Kabagenyi, A. (2013, December). Empowerment, partner’s 
behaviours and intimate partner physical violence among married women in uganda. BMC Public 
Health, 13 (1). Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1471- 2458- 13- 1112
Lagdon, S., Armour, C., & Stringer, M. (2014). Adult experience of mental health outcomes as a result of 
intimate partner violence victimisation: A systematic review. European Journal of Psychotrauma-
tology, 5(1), 24794.
Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J., Misra, T. A., Selwyn, C., & Rohling, M. L. (2012). Rates of bidirectional 
versus unidirectional intimate partner violence across samples, sexual orientations, and race/ethnici-
ties: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse, 3(2), 199–230.
Linder, J. R., & Collins, W. A. (2005). Parent and peer predictors of physical aggression and conflict 
management in romantic relationships in early adulthood. Journal of Family Psychology, 19(2), 252.
Marie, D., Fergusson, D. M., & Boden, J. M. (2008). Ethnic identity and intimate partner violence in a 
New Zealand birth cohort. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 33, 126.
Michaels-Igbokwe, C., Abramsky, T., Devries, K., Michau, L., Musuya, T., & Watts, C. (2016). Cost and 
cost-effectiveness analysis of a community mobilisation intervention to reduce intimate partner vio-
lence in kampala, uganda. BMC Public Health, 16(1), 1–10.
Mulawa, M., Kajula, L. J., Yamanis, T. J., Balvanz, P., Kilonzo, M. N., & Maman, S. (2016, January). 
Perpetration and victimization of intimate partner violence among young men and women in dar es 
salaam, tanzania. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33 (16), 2486–2511. Retrieved from https:// doi. 
org/ 10. 1177/ 08862 60515 625910
Park, S., Bang, S.-H., & Jeon, J. (2021). This society ignores our victimization: Understanding the expe-
riences of Korean male victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 
36(23–24), 11658–11680.
Peterson, C., Kearns, M. C., McIntosh, W. L., Estefan, L. F., Nicolaidis, C., McCollister, K. E., & Flor-
ence, C. (2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among us adults. American 
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 433–444.
Powney, D., & Graham-Kevan, N. (2019). Male victims of intimate partner violence: A challenge to the 
gendered paradigm. In The palgrave handbook of male psychology and mental health (pp. 123–
143). Springer.
Powney, D., Graham-Kevan, N., & Initiative, M. (2021). Male victims of coercive control. Retrieved 
from https:// www. manki nd. org. uk/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 07/ Male- Victi ms- of- Coerc ive- Contr ol- 
2021. pdf
Slep, A. M. S., Foran, H. M., Heyman, R. E., & Snarr, J. D. (2010). Unique risk and protective factors for 
partner aggression in a large scale air force survey. Journal of Community Health, 35(4), 375–383.
Smith, S. G., Fowler, K. A., & Niolon, P. H. (2014). Intimate partner homicide and corollary victims in 
16 states: National violent death reporting system, 2003–2009. American Journal of Public Health, 
104(3), 461–466.
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986). Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 
as revealed by two national surveys. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 87, 465–479.
588 Journal of Prevention (2022) 43:567–588
1 3
Tang, C., Wu, X., Chen, X., Pan, B., & Yang, X. (2019). Examining income-related inequality in health 
literacy and health-information seeking among urban population in china. BMC Public Health, 
19(1), 1–9.
Taylor, J. C., Bates, E. A., Colosi, A., & Creer, A. J. (2021). August) (p. 8862605211035870). Violence: 
Barriers to men help seeking for intimate partner violence. J. Interpers.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2000). Prevalence and consequences of male-to-female and female-to-male 
intimate partner violence as measured by the national violence against women survey. Violence 
Against Women, 6(2), 142–161.
Umubyeyi, A., Mogren, I., Ntaganira, J., & Krantz, G. (2014, August). Women are considerably more 
exposed to intimate partner violence than men in rwanda: results from a population-based, cross-sec-
tional study. BMC Womens Health, 14 (1). Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1472- 6874- 14- 99
Wagman, J. A., Namatovu, F., Nalugoda, F., Kiwanuka, D., Nakigozi, G., Gray, R., & Serwadda, D. 
(2012). A public health approach to intimate partner violence prevention in Uganda: The share pro-
ject. Violence Against Women, 18(12), 1390–1412.
Wandera, S. O., Kwagala, B., Ndugga, P., & Kabagenyi, A. (2015, March). Partners’ controlling behav-
iors and intimate partner sexual violence among married women in uganda. BMC Public Health, 15 
(1). Retrieved from https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12889- 015- 1564-1
White, H. R., & Widom, C. S. (2003). Intimate partner violence among abused and neglected children 
in young adulthood: The mediating effects of early aggression, antisocial personality, hostility and 
alcohol problems. Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research 
on Aggression, 29(4), 332–345.
WHO. (2012). Understanding and addressing violence against women: Intimate partner violence (Tech. 
Rep.). World Health Organization.
WHO. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of 
intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health Organization.
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps 
and institutional affiliations.