Exploring the Roles of Familial and Dating Relationship Violence and Sexual Assault on Adolescent Girls and Young Women’s Risk of Partner Violence in Tanzania

Abstract

This study explored the role of non-partner violence on adolescent girls and young women’s (AGYW) risk of partner violence in Tanzania. Among currently partnered AGYW, 36.7% reported lifetime physical and/or sexual partner violence. Prevalence of parental punishment, dating relationship violence, and sexual assault measured 3.0%, 2.5%, and 2.9%, respectively. There is evidence that exposure to all forms of non-partner abuse is associated with partner violence. Population attributable fractions suggest that 20% of partner violence incidence was because of non-partner violence. Adolescence and young adulthood is a critical intervention age group to prevent multiple forms of violence including in intimate relationships.

Keywords

adolescent intergenerational violence sexual assault partner violence population attributable fractions Tanzania

Introduction

Violence against women is a global human rights violation that adversely impacts women’s health, their empowerment, and household economics, and threatens the achievement of sustainable development goals (United Nations [UN], 2015; Vyas & Watts, 2009; World Health Organization, 2013). While violence is often framed as an issue that affects all women, increasing attention is being paid to adolescent girls (15–19 years) and young women (20–24 years) because of their vulnerability to multiple forms of violence (Decker et al., 2015; Stöckl et al., 2014). For example, sexual initiation, marking a transition into adulthood, is often characterized by violence and coercion (Decker et al., 2015; Wagman et al., 2009). A pooled multi-country study from low- and middle-income countries estimated that 12.5% of adolescent girls and young women (AGYW), who had ever had sex, reported their first sexual experience had been forced (Decker et al., 2015). It is also possible such experiences happen concurrently with other forms of violence like parental chastisement. A systematic review of population-based surveys on the prevalence of violence against children documented that over 50% of 15- to 17-year-olds in Africa and Asia had experienced violent discipline in the past year (Hillis et al., 2016).

Abuse in childhood and adolescence has been found to be associated with poorer long-term health, such as higher levels of depressive disorders, anxiety, and suicidal behavior, and with behavioral problems in later life, such as aggression and problematic alcohol use (Exner-Cortens et al., 2013; Hughes et al., 2017; Norman et al., 2012; Shen, 2009). Moreover, violence in the family of origin—either directly from child maltreatment or indirectly from exposure to violence between parents—and violence and sexual coercion in adolescent dating relationships are asserted to put AGYW on a trajectory of abuse, including an elevated risk of partner violence in young adult relationships (Cui et al., 2013; Fang & Corso, 2007; Halpern et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 2015).

Theoretical explanations for the continuity of violence include social learning theory, learned helplessness theory, and the life course perspective, and all draw on conceptions of social cognition. Specifically, social learning theory proposes that observation and learning from initial dyadic interactions provide behavioral models, and that violence in the home leads some to form a judgment that violence under certain circumstances is an acceptable way of interacting in a relationship context (Cui et al., 2013; Johnson et al., 2015; Kaufman-Parks et al., 2017; Thornberry & Henry, 2013). Similarly, learned helplessness theory suggests that violence between parents and parental physical violence may hamper children’s ability to defend themselves or act effectively in later life (Fang & Corso, 2007). Within the life course perspective, prior negative events, such as violence in the home or in adolescent dating relationships, hold “developmental currency” for later adult relationships (Johnson et al., 2015). While the theory suggests a cumulative disadvantage, it also acknowledges that relationships can vary over time. As follows, the theory supports the notion of a relationship learning curve where young adults draw on their full breadth of relationship experiences, both positive and negative, to inform how they conduct themselves in romantic relationships (Giordano et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2015).

These theories, however, focus on individual-level agency and as such may not entirely reflect AGYW experiences in low- and middle-income countries. Studies from sub-Saharan Africa, for example, frequently document that structural-level factors, such as widespread gender inequitable beliefs and poverty, and relationship dynamics, such as decision making authority and partner infidelity, play an important role in violence against women (Decker et al., 2018; Kaufman-Parks et al., 2017; Vyas & Heise, 2016; Vyas & Jansen, 2018). In many sub-Saharan African countries, coercion in adolescent sexual relationships is partially a consequence of economic disempowerment and poverty, which leads adolescent girls to have relationships with older men in exchange for gifts or money (Moore et al., 2007; Nnko & Pool, 1997; Vyas, 2019; Wight et al., 2006).

While much has been written about violence against women in Tanzania, very few studies have focussed on AGYW. A study conducted in 2015 in Shinyanga Region found that among 15- to 23-year-old females who had ever had sex, 17.5% reported they had experienced physical violence and 5.2% reported they had experienced sexual violence by a male partner in the 6 months to interview (Nyato et al., 2019). The study also explored socio-demographic, behavioral, and health correlates with violence and found that having been formerly married, having engaged in sex work, area-level economic deprivation, and AGYW depression were all positively associated with partner violence (Nyato et al., 2019).

This study expands the evidence base by explicitly focusing on the roles of familial violence, dating relationship violence, and sexual assault on AGYW experiences of partner violence. This study also sought to quantify the attributable burden of these experiences of non-partner forms of abuse on partner violence.

Methods

This study used the nationally representative Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data collected from August 2015 to February 2016 (Ministry of Health, Community Development, Equality and Children et al., 2016). Sampling took place in all 30 regions of mainland Tanzania and Zanzibar and was stratified by urban and rural location. A multi-stage sampling procedure was employed; in the first stage, 608 clusters (primary sampling units) were selected from a list of enumeration areas based on the 2012 population and household census (Ministry of Health, Community Development, Equality and Children et al., 2016). In the second stage, a household listing was completed in each cluster from which 22 households were selected for interview. A “household” interview that gathered key demographic information on each resident person was completed in 12,563 households.

A woman’s questionnaire was subsequently administered by a trained interviewer and in person to all women aged 15 to 49 years who were considered permanent residents in the household, yielding a sample of 13,266 women. The questionnaire included a domestic violence module that was administered to one randomly selected woman in a household, yielding a sub-sample of 9,322 women. Of these women, 3,275 women were aged 15 to 24 years. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all individual respondents included in the study who were able to either accept or decline to participate.

Measures of Violence

The outcome, lifetime physical and/or sexual partner violence, was measured from eight questions asked to women who had ever been married or lived with a man as though married:

Does/did your (last) husband/partner ever: (1) Push you, shake you, or throw something at you? (2) Slap you? (3) Twist your arm or pull your hair? (4) Punch you with his fist or with something that could hurt you? (5) Kick you or drag you or beat you up? (6) Try to choke you or burn you on purpose? (7) Physically force you to have sexual intercourse with him even when you did not want to? and (8) force you to perform any sexual acts you did not want to?

Women who responded yes to any of these acts were recorded as having ever experienced physical and/or sexual partner violence.

Familial violence, dating relationship violence, and sexual assault measures were generated using information on the respondents’ disclosure of parental violence in childhood, and their experiences of physical or sexual violence by someone other than a current or former husband or cohabiting partner. Respondents were asked whether their mother was beaten by their father—coded yes and no/don’t know. All women were asked: “From the time you were 15 years old has anyone other than (your/any) husband/partner) hit you, slapped you, kicked you, or done anything else to hurt you?” A follow-up question to an affirmative response asked who had hurt them in this way and respondents who reported that their mother or father had physically hurt them were recorded as having experienced parental physical violence—coded no/yes.

Respondents were also asked, “At any time in your life, as a child or as an adult, has anyone ever forced you in any way to have sexual intercourse or perform any other sexual acts when you did not want to?” A follow-up question to an affirmative response asked who the person was the first time it happened. Respondents who reported that a boyfriend had physically hurt them or had forced them into sex were recorded as having experienced dating relationship violence, and all other yes responses to having forced sex were recorded as sexual assault—both variables coded no/yes.

Additional Characteristics

Nine factors relating to the AGYW, four partner-level characteristics, and three relationship factors were generated from data collected in the woman’s survey, and were included in the analysis. Women’s characteristics included age, marital status (coded married/cohabiting/separated or widowed), educational attainment (coded no schooling/some primary/complete primary/some secondary/complete secondary or higher), whether the woman worked outside the home (coded not working/in paid work/in unpaid work or paid in-kind), and ownership of land or property (i.e., capital assets) (coded doesn’t own/joint ownership only/owns by themselves). Women’s attitude toward the acceptability of physical violence was based on the respondent’s acceptance of wife beating under at least one out of five circumstances: she goes out without telling him, neglects the children, argues with him, refuses to have sex with him, and burns the food (coded no/yes). The number of children born to women (parity) was recorded as a continuous variable and was capped at three. Age at first sex was coded less than 15 years/16 or 17 years/18+ years. Respondents reporting sexual violence (from a partner or non-partner) were asked their age at first forced sex encounter and coded: not experienced sexual violence/less than 15 years/16 or 17 years/18+ years.

Relationship characteristics included relationship duration (coded one year or less/ 2 or 3 years/4 or 5 years/6 years or longer), and age difference with partner (coded partner less than 5 years older/partner 5 to 9 years older/partner older by 10 years or more). Household socio-economic status (SES) was recorded as a five-category variable in the DHS and was based on household responses to ownership of assets and housing characteristics. Partner characteristics included educational attainment coded the same as for women, employment status (coded employed/not employed), problematic alcohol use (coded never drunk/sometimes or often drunk), and whether the respondent’s partner had other wives (coded no or don’t know/yes).

Analysis Sample and Methods

The sample used for the descriptive analysis included 1,820 ever-partnered AGYW. Respondent age adjusted logistic regression analysis was used to assess exposure to each form of non-partner violence with physical and/or sexual partner violence. A backward stepwise approach was used to fit the final model with additional covariates using p < .1. Regression analyses were performed on the sample of AGYW who were “currently” partnered, that is, 194 AGYW who were formerly partnered but not at the time of interview were excluded, as were 36 AGYW who reported physical or sexual violence from a former husband or partner only. This is because characteristics for that partner were not collated. This yielded an analysis sample size of 1,590 AGYW.

Population attributable fractions (PAF) were estimated to quantify the burden of physical or sexual partner violence attributable to the different forms of abuse among currently partnered AGYW. PAFs were estimated, using the punaf command in STATA after the final regression model was run (Newson, 2013). All analyses were conducted using STATA v15.0 and were adjusted for survey weights and cluster.

Ethical Statement

This study analyzed secondary publicly available data gathered as part of the DHS program which are reviewed and approved by both international and national review boards. Additional ethical approval for this analysis was not sought. A request to access the data was made by the author and was reviewed and granted by the DHS program. Verbal informed consent was obtained from all individual respondents included in the original study.

Results

Among all ever-partnered AGYW, 39.6% reported that they had ever experienced physical and/or sexual violence by their most recent husband or partner (Table 1). Dating relationship violence (physical or sexual violence by a boyfriend) was reported by 2.9%, sexual assault (sexual violence by someone other than a boyfriend or marital/cohabiting partner) by 3.2%, and parental physical violence by 3.3%. Over one-third of AGYW, 37.7%, reported that their mother had been hit by their father.

Table 1.

Prevalence of Different Forms of Violence Against Ever Partnered AGYW (N = 1,820).

	Ever partnered AGYW (N = 1,820)
Variable	N	%
Physical or sexual partner violence
No	1,153	60.4
Yes	667	39.6
Dating relationship violence
No	1,773	97.1
Yes	47	2.9
Parental physical chastisement
No	1,780	96.8
Yes	40	3.2
Sexual assault
No	1,765	96.7
Yes	55	3.3
Mother hit by father
No/don’t know	1,167	62.3
Yes	653	37.7

Note. AGYW = adolescent girls and young women.

Among currently partnered AGYW, 36.7% had ever experienced physical and/or sexual partner violence. Socio-demographic characteristics of currently partnered AGYW and results from the regression analysis are presented in Table 2. Prevalence of all forms of non-partner violence were marginally lower than for ever-partnered AGYW; 2.5% dating relationship violence, 2.9% sexual assault, 3.0% parental physical violence, and 36.7% reported their mother had been hit by their father. The mean age of AGYW in this sample was 20.77 years. Almost two-thirds (65.4%) were married. Slightly over one-third (34.1%) had been with their partner for one year or less, while almost one in five (19.8%) had been with their partner for 4 or 5 years and 16.2% for six or more years. Slightly over one in five AGYW (22.3%) did not have children; the majority had one or two children (43.7% and 24.0%, respectively), and 10.0% had three or more children. Over one-half had completed primary schooling, and 21.5% had at least some secondary education or higher. However, 26.7% had not completed primary schooling or had no schooling.

Table 2.

Final Multivariate Logistic Regression Models to Identify Factors Associated With Lifetime Physical and Sexual Partner Violence Among Currently Married/Cohabiting AGYW (n = 1,590).

Variable	Category	n	%	OR ^†	95% CI		AOR	95% CI
Age	Mean (SE)	20.77 (0.08)					1.03	0.95	1.11
Dating violence	No	1,555	97.5	1			1
Dating violence	Yes	35	2.5	3.69	1.82	7.48	3.44	1.57	7.51
Physical chastisement	No	1,552	97.0	1			1
Physical chastisement	Yes	38	3.0	2.35	1.23	4.49	2.55	1.21	5.39
Sexual assault	No	1,545	97.1	1			1
Sexual assault	Yes	45	2.9	2.43	1.34	4.43	2.66	1.37	5.16
Mother hit	No/don’t know	1,028	63.3	1			1
Mother hit	Yes	562	36.7	2.61	2.11	3.24	2.16	1.70	2.74
Marital status	Married	1,082	65.4				1
Marital status	Cohabiting	508	34.6				1.49	1.15	1.92
Relationship length	<1 year	529	34.1				1
	2–3 years	479	29.9				2.23	1.61	3.09
	4–5 years	324	19.8				2.46	1.65	3.66
	6+ years	258	16.2				1.90	1.16	3.11
Age at first sex	<15 years	545	34.4				1
	16 or 17 years	589	40.3				0.76	0.58	1.01
	>18 years	456	25.4				0.36	0.25	0.53
Age at first forced sex	No forced sex	1,362	84.6
	<15 years	57	3.9
	16 or 17 years	56	4.1
	>18 years	114	7.4
Parity	No children	335	22.3
	1 child	682	43.7
	2 children	397	24.0
	3 or more	176	10.0
Educational attainment	None	215	13.3				1
	Incomplete primary	231	13.4				1.52	1.00	2.34
	Complete primary	756	51.8				1.06	0.74	1.51
	Incomplete secondary	173	8.3				1.05	0.63	1.74
	Complete secondary+	215	13.2				0.69	0.39	1.20
Capital assets	Doesn’t own	894	55.4				1
	Owns alone	310	19.9				1.35	0.99	1.83
	Owns jointly	386	24.7				1.84	1.37	2.48
Employment status	Not working	429	25.1
	Cash	592	36.7
	Not paid/paid in-kind	569	38.2
Reasons to beat wife	No reason	575	33.8				1
Reasons to beat wife	At least one reason	1,015	66.2				1.81	1.40	2.34
Household SES	Poorest	335	24.4				1
	Poorer	314	21.0				1.41	0.99	2.01
	Middle	317	19.3				1.48	1.03	2.14
	Richer	369	17.9				1.55	1.04	2.31
	Richest	255	17.5				2.66	1.58	4.48
Urban/rural	Rural	1,217	74.1				1
Urban/rural	Urban	373	25.9				0.96	0.66	1.38
Age difference	<5 years older	543	36.4				1
	5–9 years older	662	40.3				0.97	0.74	1.28
	10+ years older	385	23.3				0.72	0.52	1.00
Partner education	None	189	11.5
	Incomplete primary	203	12.0
	Complete primary	738	50.7
	Incomplete secondary	216	12.1
	Complete secondary+	241	13.7
Partner employment	Not working	529	31.9
Partner employment	Working	1,061	68.2
Polygamy	No/don’t know	1,428	88.9				1
Polygamy	Yes	162	11.1				1.64	1.10	2.45
Partner drunk	Never	1,350	85.2				1
Partner drunk	Sometimes/often	240	14.8				2.46	1.79	3.37

Note. AGYW = adolescent girls and young women; SE = standard error; OR = odds ratio; CI = confidence interval; AOR = adjusted odds ratio; SES = socio-economic status.

†

Adjusted for respondent age.

Over one-third (36.7%) worked for money and 38.2% were either unpaid or were paid in-kind. The majority (55.4%) did not own a capital asset; however, almost one-fifth owned an asset by themselves. Almost one-quarter lived in the poorest SES households, compared with 17.5% who lived in the richest SES household.

Thirty-six percent of AGYW were partnered with men who were either the same age or between 1 and 5 years older. Almost one-quarter (23.3%), however, were partnered with men 10 or more years older. Among partner characteristics, three-quarters (74.3%) had primary schooling or less, compared with 13.7% who had completed secondary schooling or higher. Almost one-third (31.9%) were not working, 11.1% had other wives, and 14.8% were either sometimes or often drunk.

Table 2 also presents the odds ratio (adjusted for age) of the relationship between various forms of non-partner violence and AGYW experiences of physical and/or sexual partner violence. Experience of dating relationship violence (odds ratio [OR]: 3.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.82–7.48), parental physical violence (OR: 2.35; 95% CI: 1.23–4.49), and sexual assault (OR: 2.43; 95% CI: 1.34–4.43) were all significantly associated with higher risk of physical and/or sexual partner violence. In addition, the indicator mother hit by father was also significantly associated with higher risk of violence (OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 2.11–3.24).

In the multivariate model, the statistically significant associations between all forms of familial and adolescent violence and AGYW experiences of physical and/or sexual partner violence remained and with little change in the odds ratio. Other covariates associated with higher odds of partner violence included cohabiting partnership type (compared with married AGYW), both joint and sole ownership of capital assets, and tolerant attitudes toward wife beating. Compared with sexual debut at 15 years or younger, AGYW reporting their first sexual experience was at age 18 years or more were significantly less likely to report physical and/or sexual partner violence. Compared with AGYW reporting no schooling, having some primary (but not completed) education level was marginally significantly associated with higher risk of partner violence (AOR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.00–2.34).

Both relationship duration and age difference between the respondent and her partner were significantly associated with partner violence. While longer duration of the relationship was associated with higher odds of violence, AGYW whose partners were 10 or more years older had significantly reduced odds of experiencing partner violence. Compared to AGYW living in the poorest SES households, living in the middle, richer, and richest SES households were associated with significantly higher risk of partner violence. Two characteristics related to the respondents’ partners—having more than one wife and problematic alcohol use—were significantly associated with women’s higher risk of physical and/or sexual partner violence. Age at first forced sex, AGYW respondent status, parity, and partner educational attainment and employment status were not significantly associated with partner violence in the intermediate model and were excluded from the final model.

PAF estimates suggest that among currently partnered AGYW, approximately one in five cases of partner violence were attributable to other forms of violence: 20.3% (95% CI: 14.9%–25.3%) (Table 3). Violence between parents accounted for 15.8% (95% CI: 10.7%–20.6%), while 1.6% (95% CI: 0.6%–2.5%) of cases were attributable to dating relationship violence, 1.6% (95% CI: 0.5%–2.8%) to sexual assault, and 1.2% (95% CI: 0.2%–2.2%) to parental physical violence.

Table 3.

Population Attributable Fractions for Non-Partner Violence and Partner Violence Among AGYW (N = 1,590).

Age category	Prior violence category	N	No. IPV cases	PAF (%)	95% CI
AGYW	Dating relationship violence	35	23	1.6	0.6	2.5
	Sexual assault	45	25	1.6	0.5	2.8
	Parental physical chastisement	38	21	1.2	0.2	2.2
	Mother hit	562	277	15.8	10.7	20.6
	All forms of non-partner violence	630	313	20.3	14.9	25.3

Note. AGYW = adolescent girls and young women; IPV = intimate partner violence; PAF = population attributable fractions; CI = confidence interval.

Discussion

This study sought to quantitatively explore the roles of familial violence, dating relationship violence, and sexual assault on AGYW experiences of partner violence in Tanzania. Exposure to all forms of non-partner violence independently and significantly elevated AGYW’s risk of partner violence. These findings highlight that adolescence and young adulthood is a critical intervention age group to prevent multiple forms of violence including in intimate relationships.

The most prevalent form of non-partner violence experienced by AGYW was childhood exposure to violence between parents, which has been consistently found to be associated with higher rates of partner violence in Tanzania and elsewhere (Abramsky et al., 2011; Jansen et al., 2016; Vyas & Heise, 2016; Vyas & Jansen, 2018). Parental physical violence toward AGYW was also significantly associated with higher risk of partner violence; however, it is likely this study underestimates the burden on partner violence. This is because the measure of parental violence used only captures violence since the age of 15 years and not before. At approximately 3%, prevalence of parental physical violence in this study is much lower than that documented in the 2009 national violence against children survey which found that by the age of 18 years, 49.3% and 36.9% of females had experienced physical violence by a mother and a father, respectively (United Nations Children’s Fund [UNICEF], 2009). Social learning theory asserts that familial violence leads individuals to form the belief that violence represents a necessary form of control, subsequently leading to higher rates of violence perpetration. Higher rates of partner violence perpetrated by men who had experienced familial violence are supported empirically (Fang & Corso, 2007; Fulu et al., 2013; Kaufman-Parks et al., 2017). While this study could not explore familial violence experienced by partners of AGYW, partner problematic alcohol use, which has been linked with childhood maltreatment, was significantly associated with increased AGYW risk of partner violence (Afifi et al., 2012; Greene et al., 2017; Heise, 2011). Likewise, polygamy, considered an expression of masculinity, was also significantly associated with partner violence. The reason for this finding could be that AGYW in polygamous marriages have less relationship power, therefore raising their vulnerability.

There was evidence of violence continuity from adolescent dating relationships to young adulthood. Being a victim of dating relationship violence significantly increased AGYW’s risk of partner violence. This finding also supports social learning theories that assert violence in dating relationships lead some AGYW to believe that violence represents a normal and acceptable part of romantic relationships which, in turn, lead them to be less resistant to partner violence (Cui et al., 2013). The significant risk associations between sexual assault and early sexual debut on AGYW risk of partner violence can also be explained by social cognition theories. Both factors have disempowering effects on women, who consequently are less able to protect themselves against violence later in life, or who may self-select for subsequent abusive relationships (Koenig et al., 2003).

Of the additional covariates explored, AGYW’s tolerant attitude toward wife beating was significantly associated with higher rates of partner violence, a finding consistent with other studies (Abramsky et al., 2011; Jansen et al., 2016; Vyas & Jansen, 2018). Studies that have sought to understand the role of attitudes on risk of partner violence have framed acceptance of wife beating as a reflection of inequitable societal norms, and that at an individual level, poverty and a lack of education hamper men’s and women’s ability to challenge these norms (Hindin, 2003; Manju et al., 2004). Limited attention, however, has been paid to how other forms of abuse, such as familial and dating relationship violence, function as behavioral models that influence these attitudes and this is an area for future research.

Relationship factors that were significantly associated with partner violence in this study included union status, duration of the relationship, and age difference between AGYW and their partners. Higher incidence of partner violence was found among AGYW in cohabiting relationships, when compared to AGYW who were married. This is consistent with commitment theory that asserts that cohabiting unions are more likely to be characterized by lower interpersonal commitment to the relationship (Manning et al., 2018). Longer duration of the relationship was also associated with higher partner violence and is likely because of the longer exposure and greater opportunities for partner violence to occur. AGYW whose partners were 10 or more years older, however, had significantly lower odds of partner violence.

While the intersection between women’s economic empowerment and partner violence has been extensively researched, this study found few indicators of AGYW and their partner’s economic status to be significantly associated with partner violence. The significant risk association found with capital asset ownership, jointly or by themselves, could be a reflection of AGYW’s feelings of empowerment in relationships, which conceivably makes them more likely to initiate verbal confrontation as a means of conflict resolution (Vyas et al., 2015). Employment status (AGYW and partner) and partner educational attainment, however, were not significantly associated with partner violence. Finally, the significant risk association with higher SES found in the final model is an anomaly and counter to theory and empirical evidence (Vyas & Watts, 2009). One possible explanation for this finding is the presence of confounding.

The findings from this study need to be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the cross-sectional study design limits causal inferences. Second, the study’s use of retrospective self-reports means that rates of violence are likely under-reported because of social desirability bias, and that the true prevalence rates of the various forms of violence are higher. Finally, the study lacked data on violence before the age of 15 years and on partner experiences of violence in childhood and adolescence; these remain areas for future research. Despite these limitations, the study provides important evidence on the role of both familial and adolescent dating relationship violence and sexual assault on AGYW’s risk of intimate partner violence. Interventions targeted to the AGYW age group should focus on the multiple types of violence that occur in an AGYW development trajectory.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Seema Vyas

Author Biography

Seema Vyas, PhD is Assistant Professor in the Department of Population Health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and public health tutor at Kilimanjaro Christian Medical University College, Tanzania. She is an experienced violence against women researcher and economist, and she has researched extensively the linkages between women’s economic status and domestic violence in low- and middle-income countries.

References

Abramsky

Watts

C. H.

Garcia-Moreno

Devries

Kiss

Ellsberg

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

Heise

(2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? Findings from the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence. BMC Public Health, 11(1), Article 109. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-109

Afifi

T. O. A.

Henriksen

Asmundson

G. J. G.

Sareen

(2012). Childhood maltreatment and substance use disorders among men and women in a nationally representative sample. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 57(11), 677–686. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371205701105

Cui

Ueno

Gordon

Fincham

F. D.

(2013). The continuation of intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 75(2), 300–313. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12016

Decker

M. R.

Latimore

A. D.

Yasutake

Haviland

Ahmed

Blum

R. W.

Sobnestin

Aston

N. M.

(2015). Gender-based violence against adolescent and young adult women in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56(2), 188–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2014.09.003

Decker

M. R.

Wood

S. N.

Ndinda

Yenokyan

Sinclair

Maksud

Ross

Omondi

Ndirangu

(2018). Sexual violence among adolescent girls and young women in Malawi: A cluster-randomized controlled implementation trial of empowerment self-defense training. BMC Public Health, 18(1), Article 1341. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6220-0

Exner-Cortens

Eckenrode

Rothman

(2013). Longitudinal associations between teen dating violence victimization and adverse health outcomes. Pediatrics, 131(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1029

Fang

Corso

P. S.

(2007). Child maltreatment, youth violence, and intimate partner violence: Developmental relationships. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.06.003

Fulu

Jewkes

Roselli

Garcia-Moreno

(2013). Prevalence of and factors associated with male perpetration of intimate partner violence: Findings from the UN multi-country cross-sectional study on men and violence in Asia and the Pacific. Lancet Global Health, 1(4), e187–e207. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(13)70074-3

Giordano

P. C.

Johnson

W. L.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Minter

M. D.

(2015). Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology, 53(3), 330–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12073

10.

Greene

M. C.

Kane

J. C.

Tol

W. A.

(2017). Alcohol use and intimate partner violence among women and their partners in sub-Saharan Africa. Global Mental Health, 4, e13. https://doi.org/10.1017/gmh.2017.9

11.

Halpern

C. T.

Spriggs

A. L.

Martin

S. L.

Kupper

L. L.

(2009). Patterns of intimate partner violence victimization from adolescence to young adulthood in a nationally representative sample. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(5), 508–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.011

12.

Heise

(2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. http://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/21062/1/Heise_Partner_Violence_evidence_overview.pdf

13.

Hillis

Mercy

Amobi

Kress

(2016). Global prevalence of past-year violence against children: A systematic review and minimum estimates. Pediatrics, 137(3). https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-4079

14.

Hindin

M. J.

(2003). Understanding women’s attitudes towards wife beating in Zimbabwe. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(7), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862003000700008

15.

Hughes

Bellis

M. A.

Hardcastle

K. A.

Sethi

Butchart

Mikton

Jones

Dunne

M. P.

(2017). The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health, 2(8), e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(17)30118-4

16.

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

Nguyen

T. V. N.

Hoang

T. A.

(2016). Exploring risk factors associated with intimate partner violence in Vietnam: Results from a cross-sectional national survey. International Journal of Public Health, 61(8), 923–934. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0879-8

17.

Johnson

W. L.

Manning

W. D.

Giordano

P. C.

Longmore

M. A.

(2015). Relationship context and intimate partner violence from adolescence to young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57(6), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.08.014

18.

Kaufman-Parks

A. M.

DeMaris

Giordano

P. C.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

(2017). Parents and partners: Moderating and mediating influences on intimate partner violence across adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(8), 1295–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516676639

19.

Koenig

M. A.

Lutalo

Zhao

Nalugoda

Wabwire-Mangen

Kiwanuka

Wagman

Serwadda

Wawer

Gray

(2003). Domestic violence in rural Uganda: Evidence from a community-based study. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 81(1), 53–60. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0042-96862003000100011

20.

Manju

Sekhar

Nafissatou

(2004). An empirical investigation of attitudes towards wife- beating among men and women in seven sub-Saharan African countries. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 8(3), 116–136.

21.

Manning

W. D.

Longmore

M. A.

Giordano

P. C.

(2018). Cohabitation and intimate partner violence during emerging adulthood: High constraints and low commitment. Journal of Family Issues, 39(4), 1030–1055. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X16686132

22.

Ministry of Health, Community Development, Gender Equality and Children, Ministry of Health, National Bureau of Statistics, Office of the Chief Government Statistician, & ICF. (2016). Tanzania Demographic and Health Survey and Malaria Indicator Survey (TDHS-MIS) 2015-16.

23.

Moore

A. M.

Awusabo-Asare

Madise

John-Langba

Kumi-Kyereme

(2007). Coerced first sex among adolescent girls in sub-Saharan Africa: Prevalence and context. African Journal of Reproductive Health, 11(3), 62–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/25549732

24.

Newson

R. B.

(2013). Attributable and unattributable risks and fractions and other scenario comparisons. Stata Journal, 13(4), 672–698. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1301300402

25.

Nnko

Pool

(1997). Sexual discourse in the context of AIDS: Dominant themes on adolescent sexuality among primary school pupils in Magu district, Tanzania. Health Transition Review, 7(Suppl. 3), 85–90.

26.

Norman

R. E.

Byambaa

Butchart

Scott

Vos

(2012). The long-term health consequences of child physical abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, 9(11), Article e1001349. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001349

27.

Nyato

Materu

Kuringe

Zoungrana

Mjungu

Lemwayi

Majani

Mtenga

Nnko

Munisi

Shao

Wambura

Changalucha

Drake

Komba

(2019). Prevalence and correlates of partner violence among adolescent girls and young women: Evidence from baseline data of a cluster randomised trial in Tanzania. PLOS ONE, 14(10), Article e0222950. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222950

28.

Shen

A. C. T.

(2009). Long-term effects of interparental violence and child physical maltreatment experiences on PTSD and behavior problems: A national survey of Taiwanese college students. Child Abuse and Neglect, 33(3), 148–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.07.006

29.

Stöckl

March

Pallitto

Garcia-Moreno

(2014). Intimate partner violence among adolescents and young women: Prevalence and associated factors in nine countries: A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 14(1), Article 751. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-751

30.

Thornberry

T. P.

Henry

K. L.

(2013). Intergenerational continuity in maltreatment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(4), 555–569. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9697-5

31.

United Nations. (2015). Sustainable Development Goal 5: Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg5

32.

United Nations Children’s Fund. (2009). Violence against children Tanzania: Findings from a national survey in 2009. https://www.unicef.org/media/files/VIOLENCE_AGAINST_CHILDREN_IN_TANZANIA_REPORT.pdf

33.

Vyas

(2019). Women’s economic status sexual negotiation: Re-evaluation of the normative precedent in Tanzania. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 22(10), 1097–1111. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2019.1652933

34.

Vyas

Heise

(2016). How do area-level socioeconomic status and gender norms affect partner violence against women? Evidence from Tanzania. International Journal of Public Health, 61(8), 971–980. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-016-0876-y

35.

Vyas

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

(2018). Unequal power relations and partner violence against women in Tanzania: A cross-sectional analysis. BMC Women’s Health, 18, Article 185. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-018-0675-0

36.

Vyas

Jansen

H. A. F. M.

Heise

Mbwambo

(2015). Exploring the association between women’s access to economic resources and intimate partner violence in Dar es Salaam and Mbeya, Tanzania. Social Science and Medicine, 146, 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.10.016

37.

Vyas

Watts

C. H.

(2009). How does economic empowerment affect women’s risk of intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries? A systematic review of published evidence. Journal of International Development, 21, 577–602.

38.

Wagman

Baumgartner

J. N.

Geary

C. W.

, et al. (2009). Experiences of sexual coercion among adolescent women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(12), 2073–2095. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260508327707

39.

Wight

Plummer

M. L.

Mshana

Wamoyi

Shigongo

Z. S.

Ross

D. A.

(2006). Contradictory sexual norms and expectations for young people in rural Northern Tanzania. Social Science and Medicine, 62(4), 987–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.06.052

40.

World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non- partner sexual violence.