Skip to main content

Advertisement

  • Research
  • Open Access
  • Open Peer Review

Conceptualizing sexual and gender-based violence in European asylum reception centers

Archives of Public Health201977:27

https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-019-0351-3

  • Received: 17 November 2018
  • Accepted: 7 May 2019
  • Published:
Open Peer Review reports

Abstract

Background

Sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) is a major public health problem and a violation of human rights. Refugees, asylum seekers and migrants are exposed to a constant risk for both victimization and perpetration. Yet, in the context of European asylum reception centers (EARF) professionals are also considered to be at risk. Our study explores the conceptualization of SGBV that residents and professionals have in this specific context. Further, we intent to identify key socio-demographic characteristics that are associated with SGBV conceptualization for both groups.

Methods

We developed a cross-sectional study using the Senperforto project database. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with residents (n = 398) and professionals (n = 202) at EARF. A principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to variables related with knowledge on SGBV. Chi-square test and Fisher’s exact test were applied to understand if significant statistical association exists with socio-demographic characteristics (significant level 0.5%).

Results

The majority of residents were male (64.6%), aged from 19 to 29 years (41.4%) and single (66.8%); for professionals the majority were women (56.2%), aged from 30 to 39 years (42.3%) and married (56.8%). PCA for residents resulted in 14 dimensions of SGBV representing 83.56% of the total variance of the data, while for professionals it resulted in 17 dimensions that represent 86.92% of the total variance of the data. For both groups differences in SGBV conceptualization were found according to host country, sex, age and marital status. Specific for residents we found differences according to the time of arrival to Europe/host country and type of accommodation, while for professionals differences were found according to legal status and education skills.

Conclusion

Residents and professionals described different conceptualization of SGBV, with specific types of SGBV not being recognized as a violent act. Primary preventive strategies in EARF should focus on reducing SGBV conceptualization discrepancies, taking into account socio-demographic characteristics.

Keywords

  • Sexual and gender based violence
  • Sexual violence
  • Refugees
  • Asylum-seekers
  • Migrants
  • Asylum reception centres
  • Professionals
  • Conceptualization
  • Prevention

Background

Sexual and Gender-based Violence (SGBV) is a major public health problem and a violation of human rights [1, 2]. SGBV encompasses gender-stereotyped acts of violence, based on unequal power relations and denying human dignity, rights and development [1, 3].

Considering the global challenge of (forced) migration [4], United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) defines SGBV as “(…) violence that is directed against a person on the basis of gender or sex. It includes acts that inflict physical, mental or sexual harm or suffering, threats of such acts, coercion and other deprivations of liberty (….)” [1]. SGBV comprises five categories, namely, physical, psychological, sexual, socio-economic violence and harmful cultural practices [1]. SGBV conceptualization is a matter of judgement, affected by cultural beliefs, social norms and values [5]. What is considered a violent behavior varies according to specific determinants such as socio-cultural and historical conditions [6].

Referring to SGBV conceptualization within the context of European Union (EU) policy documents, SGBV in general, and more specifically in migrants, has been framed as violence against women [7, 8]. Yet, literature has demonstrated that female, male and transgender refugees, asylum seekers (AS) and migrants are vulnerable to SGBV [4, 913]. In a study on SGBV among refugees, AS and undocumented migrants in European asylum reception centers (EARF) a high percentage of multiple types of SGBV was reported in all sexes [14]. A study done in Belgium and the Netherlands found a high prevalence of direct or indirect SGBV exposure among migrant: 87/223 respondents had been personally victimized since their arrival in Europe. The majority of perpetrators were male (74.0%), and 69.3% of victims were female (male victims were 28.6%). Also, asylum related professionals were found to be assailants in one fifth of the reported violence [13].

A socio-ecological approach is described in the literature as an understanding model for SGBV [1, 2, 15]. The model assumes SGBV as the result of a permanent and dynamic interaction between health determinants at four levels: individual, relational, community and society [1, 2, 15]. A combination of these levels triggers the patterns of SGBV [16, 17]. At individual level, research has shown that women and girls, especially the impoverished are more prone to victimization [13, 18]. Recent evidence demonstrates that boys and men are also exposed to sexual violence [19]. In the context of EARF, both females and males have a tendency to be victims and/or perpetrators [14]. Furthermore, age [20], attained education and cultural beliefs appears to be important determinants when addressing SGBV [10]. At a relational level, children exposed to a violent context are more susceptible of becoming victims and/or perpetrators [21]. Further, a systematic review highlights that immigrant adolescents are exposed to high rates of violence [22]. From a community and societal perspective, studies have shown that an important determinant for sexual violence among refugees, AS and undocumented migrants is their restricted legal status [7] and the migration process itself [3].

In the context of migration, it becomes relevant to engage with affected communities [23] and to understand legal power relations triggered by society constructed knowledge, beliefs and norms that undermine refugees, AS and migrants, threatening their human rights and putting them at higher risk of SGBV [24]. Primary prevention of SGBV should focus on measures ensuring ‘basic condition for sustainable and effective change’ [25]. In this sense, a wide conceptualization of SGBV from an individual, relational, community and societal perspective is needed to promote a comprehensive prevention approach to violence [26]. Moreover, the intersectional nature of SGBV should be acknowledged while addressing preventive measure [8, 27].

Our study aims to expand the understanding of SGBV conceptualization, in a vulnerable population of refugees, AS and migrants on the one hand and in professionals working with these communities in EARF on the other. Further, we identify socio-demographic characteristics of both groups that can be associated with SGBV conceptualization.

Methods

Study design

A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the Senperforto Project developed in eight European countries (Belgium, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Malta, The Netherland, Portugal and Spain). The main objective of Senperforto was to explore what knowledge, attitude, practice (KAP), and needs of professionals and residents from EARF were, in order to develop a gender-balanced European Frame of Reference for both beneficiaries [28]. Senperforto applied a community based participatory research methodology, mobilizing stakeholders – AS and refugees, asylum reception professionals, policy makers, civil society (…) – from the participating countries in the community advisory boards. Further, community researchers – professionals and/or residents that showed good social and communication skills – were trained (standardized training course) to conduct semi-structured interviews. Finally, a KAP survey was conducted.

For a detailed description of Senperforto project and methodology we refer to the article Sexual and Gender-based violence in the European asylum and reception sector: a perpetuum mobile [14].

Participants, sample and data collection

The Senperforto Project participant sample included 600 residents and professionals living and working in EARF. Residents refer to refugees, AS, and undocumented migrants. Professionals refer to services and health care providers working in the facilities. The inclusion criteria for the residents (n = 398) implied being member of the most numerous groups of asylum seeking and unaccompanied minor communities in the host country of research. They had to be staying at, or just having left, an asylum reception facility in the country of research. For professionals (n = 202), they had to work, or just stopped working at asylum reception facilities. Regarding the selection of facilities (open or closed (detention) facilities, reception or return centres, private accommodation, urban/rural, unaccompanied minors facilities, AS centres and refugee centres) all official reception facilities were listed; and facilities were selected in order to have at least one category of facility represented among the respondents. If more than one centre was available for a certain type of facility, centres were chosen randomly.

Also, a geographical distribution over the country of research was conducted and taken into account to the feasibility of the study. Considering that the situation of the asylum reception sector in each partner country differs, the sampling strategy was adapted to the local situation. In all countries random sampling was used except for Spain and the Netherlands where convenient sampling was applied due to political constraints [14].

.Data was obtained through semi-structured interviews that were conducted by well-trained community researchers. The questionnaire included data on socio-demographic characteristics of the participants and continued with three dimensions of research [1]: knowledge of the respondent on types of SGBV, on occurrence of violence and existence of prevention measures [2]; attitudes regarding SGBV and its prevention within EARF [3]; and a part on their evaluation of effectiveness of existing SGBV prevention and response measures and suggestions. Our study focuses on the first part of the questionnaire, which consisted of 82 closed questions coded with a Likert scale (I fully agree, I agree, Neutral, I do not agree, I fully disagree). Questions described the different acts of SGBV as put forward in the UNHCR guidelines on SGBV prevention and response [1] and inquired on a gender conceptualization, i.e. did they perceive the described behaviour as a violent act when it was done to girls and women, and subsequently if the same act happened to boys and men? Finally, the questionnaire was translated and back translated into the languages of the main groups of AS in the 8 participating countries, as well as the official language of each participating country (Arabic, Dari, Dutch, English, French, Greek, Hungarian, Portuguese, Romanes, Somali, Spanish, Russian, Maltese, Amharic and Tigrigna). A pilot test was done with members of the community advisory board. Prior to the interview respondents had agreed with the community researcher on the chosen language and sex of the interviewer. The interviews were conducted one-to-one at a private place in or near the asylum reception facility.

The Senperforto project applied the ethical and safety guidelines in researching violence recommended by WHO and UNHCR. Furthermore, it complied with the local ethical requirements and received ethical approval from Ghent University Hospital Ethical Committee [B67020096667].

Statistical methods

The questionnaires from Senperforto project included quantitative and qualitative data. For qualitative data, a framework analysis technique was used, further categorization and introduction into IBM® SPSS software. Quantitative data was introduced directly in IBM® SPSS software database. For our study we used a factor analysis approach using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) [29] for a factor extraction and Varimax rotation, to reduce the volume of the data. We conducted a multivariate analysis of 82 variables regarding SGBV knowledge. PCA analyses data representing observations described by dependent but inter-correlated variables. The goal is to extract the most important information from the original data and to convert this new information as a set of new variables, i.e. principal components (PC) [29]. These PC’s were analyzed and named dimensions of SGBV, according to the questions with higher loading result from PCA output. The next step consisted of the recodification of the PC’s – dimensions of SGBV – into nominal variables, each of them with three categories (negative, neutral and positive) according to the crosscut values for lower and upper barrier outliers. The lower fence outliers matched with the group of people that fully agreed with the dimension of violence in analysis while the upper fence outliers matched with the ones that fully disagreed.

Subsequently, we selected specific socio-demographic characteristics for residents and professionals. Commonly analyzed socio-demographic characteristics included: country of research (from here called host country), sex, age, marital status, religion, status according to immigration law and type of facility living/working (detention center, open reception center, local reception initiative, return center). Specifically for residents, we included the variables: having children, year of arrival to Europe and to hosting country, kind of accommodation (house, apartment, container, room, homeless…), attained education, daily activity in the country of origin and hosting country. For professionals we included: number of languages speaking and number of languages actually needed at work (here interpreted as language skills), to be working in a reception center by the time of questionnaires and the current occupation. Statistical tests were applied as the Chi-square Test and Fisher’s exact test, to understand if significant statistical association exist at the 5% significance level.

Results

Profile of respondents

The majority of residents were male (64.6%), aged 19–29 years old (41.4%) and single (66.8%); for professionals the majority were women (56.2%), aged 30–39 years old (42.3%) and married (56.8%). For residents, we had 53 different countries of origin, the more representatives were Somalia (20.9%), Afghanistan (11.1%), Nigeria (8.5%), Guinea Conakry (6.3%) and Iraq (4.5%). Regarding educational level, 48.5% of residents had the secondary level of education, 25.6% had primary education, 14.1% university degree and 10.8% no education. For professionals occupational background 50.0% were social assistants, 21.0% security or administration related, 19.8% directors (20%), and 9.0% health related professionals. Table 1 presents an overview of socio-demographic characteristics for both groups.
Table 1

Socio-demographic characteristics of residents and professionals

 

Residents

Professionals

Total

N 398

%

N202

%

N 600

%

Host country

 Belgium

61

15.3

32

15.8

93

15.5

 Greece

36

9.0

30

14.9

66

11.0

 Hungary

68

17.1

21

10.4

89

14.8

 Ireland

63

15.8

32

15.8

95

15.8

 Malta

61

15.3

30

14.9

91

15.2

 Netherlands

33

8.3

5

2.5

38

6.3

 Portugal

53

13.3

37

18.3

90

15.0

 Spain

23

5.8

15

7.4

38

6.3

Marital Status

 Single

266

66.8

65

32.7

331

55.4

 Engaged

6

1.5

4

2.0

10

1.7

 Married/Legally cohabiting

99

24.9

113

56.8

212

35.5

 Prior relation. Not anymore

27

6.8

17

8.5

44

7.4

 Missing

0

3

3

Religion

 Yes

374

94.2

130

65.0

504

84.4

 No

23

5.8

70

35.0

93

15.6

 Missing

1

2

3

Year of arrival in Europe

  < 2000

8

2.0

15

50.0

23

5.4

 2000–2004

36

9.1

9

30.0

45

10.5

 2005–2008

193

48.6

6

20.0

199

46.6

 2009–2010

160

40.3

0

0.0

160

37.5

 Missing

1

172

173

Year of arrival to host country

  < 2000

3

0.8

15

46.9

18

4.2

 2000–2004

29

7.3

9

28.1

38

8.9

 2005–2008

186

47.0

8

25.0

194

45.3

 2009–2010

178

44.9

0

0.0

178

41.6

 Missing

2

170

172

Legal Status

 Asylum Seeker

246

62.3

0

0.0

246

47.3

 National Citizen

0

0.0

109

87.2

109

21

 Temporary Residence Status

83

21.0

5

4.0

88

16.9

 Recognized Refugee

38

9.6

8

6.4

46

8.8

 Refused Asylum Seeker

16

4.1

0

0.0

16

3.1

 Undocumented

9

2.3

0

0.0

9

1.7

 Immigrant worker

0

0.0

3

2.4

3

0.6

 Other

3

0.8

0

0.0

3

0.6

 Missing

3

77

80

SGBV conceptualization

Residents

When analyzing the results of the multivariate analysis of principal components, we found 14 new variables, representing 83.56% of the total variance of the data. These new variables were analyzed according to the questions with higher PCA output loading, labeled as dimensions of SGBV according to UNHCR definition [1] and represents residents SGBV conceptualization. The questions that correspond to each dimension are described in Table 2.
Table 2

Principal component analysis for residents: representative questions and output loading (Varimax variation)

Residents

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

PCA Loading output

PC12 – Sexual innuendo

 Unwelcome and unwanted sexual comments or invitations to girls/women.

0.862

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.876

PC4 – Visual sexual Harassment

 Made to watch photos of naked persons as a girl/woman?

0.820

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.817

 Made to watch porn as a girl/woman?

0.802

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.767

PC9 – Marital Rape

 Unwanted sex within a relationship and/or marriage to a girl/woman?

0.754

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.793

PC1 – Abuse, rape and trafficking

 Unwelcome penetration of the vagina and/or anus by an organ or by an object of girl/woman.

0.831

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.831

 Forced prostitution of girls/women?

0.817

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.819

 Sexual slavery/trafficking of girls/women?

0.749

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.802

 Rape of girls/women as a weapon of war?

0.791

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.789

PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE

 PC3 – Humiliation

  Unwelcome remarks and comments from nonsexual nature to girls/women.

0.767

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.787

  Teasing, showing no respect, racist or discriminating comments to a girl/woman?

0.716

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.728

 PC6 – Confinement

  Someone denying a girl/woman to be together with their partner in private?

0.751

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.700

HARMFUL CULTURAL PRACTICES

 PC10 – Denial of education of girls and women

  Neglecting female children, denial from education to female children?

0.623

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.653

 PC14 – Genital mutilation

  Circumcision of girl/woman?

0.450

 PC11 – Early marriage

  Child marriage of a girl/woman?

0.803

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.817

 PC5 - Honor killing and Maiming

  Killing a girl/woman in the name of family honor?

0.751

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.745

SOCIO-ECONOMIC VIOLENCE

 PC13 – Discrimination

  Being treated differently by other people because of being a girl/woman?

0.569

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.603

 PC2 - Denial of opportunities and services

  Denial of access to education, health assistance or remunerated employment because of the residence status of a girl/woman.

0.792

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.790

  Denial of access to education, health assistance or remunerated employment because of being a girl/woman.

0.774

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.763

 PC8 – Denial of access to exercise civil, social, economic rights

  As a girl/woman to be isolated, confined and/or deprived of liberty of movement

0.644

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.637

 PC7 – Social exclusion/ostracism based on sexual orientation

  Being treated differently by other people because of the sexual orientation of girl/woman.

0.853

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.855

Professionals

The multivariate analyze for the group of professionals resulted in 17 new variables representing 86.92% of the total variance of collected data. These new variables were analyzed and labelled dimensions of SGBV [1] representing professionals SGBV conceptualization. The representative questions of each dimension of SGBV are described in Table 3.
Table 3

Principal component analysis for professionals: representative questions and output loading (Varimax variation)

Professionals

SEXUAL VIOLENCE

PCA Loading output

PC15 – Sexual innuendo

 Unwelcome and unwanted sexual comments or invitations to girls/women.

0.619

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.600

PC3 – Visual sexual harassment

 Made to watch somebody undress as a girl/woman?

0.858

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.879

 Made to watch photos of naked persons as a girl/woman?

0.887

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.817

PC14 – Denudement

 Having to undress in front of other people watching as a girl/woman?

0.698

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.799

PC1 –Abuse, Rape and Trafficking

 Unwelcome penetration of the vagina and/or anus by an organ or by an object of girls/women?

0.930

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.930

 Trafficking of people for their organs?

0.833

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.833

PC10 – Sexual exploitation

 Sex with a girl/woman in exchange for survival, food for the children, shelter, money, papers, other favors.

0.916

 And if this happens to boys/men?

0.916

PHYSICAL VIOLENCE

 PC8 – Physical assault without permanent consequences

  Physical assault with no permanent consequences (e.g. hitting, kicking, pulling)

0.773

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.790

 PC5 – Physical assault with permanent consequences

  Physical assault with permanent consequences (e.g. burning, stabbing, maiming)

0.877

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.877

  Killing a girl/woman in the name of family honor?

0.798

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.843

PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE

 PC 12 – Threat and humiliation

  Threatening of girls/women with unwelcome not sexual acts (make you feel scared.…)

0.548

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.549

  Teasing, showing no respect, racist or discriminating comments to a girl/woman?

0.546

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.546

 PC9 – Verbal violence

  Unwelcome remarks and comments from nonsexual nature to girls/women.

0.759

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.759

 PC13 – Confinement, individual level

  As a girl/woman to be isolated, confined and/or deprived of liberty of movement

0.720

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.642

 PC6 – Relational violence

  Someone denying a girl/woman to be together with his or her partner in private?

0.863

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.862

  Someone denying a girl/woman to be together with her parents or children in private.

0.812

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.812

 PC16 – Parental relational violence

  Someone denying a girl/woman to fulfill her role as a mother (no money for food)

0.669

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.669

HARMFUL CULTURAL PRACTICES

 PC17 – Genital mutilation

  Circumcision of girl/woman?

0.417

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.632

 PC7 – Early marriage

  Child marriage of a girl/woman?

0.882

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.862

  PC 11 – Honor killing and maiming

  Injuring a girl/woman in the name of family honor?

0.853

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.853

SOCIO-ECONOMIC VIOLENCE

 PC2 – Denial of opportunities and services

  Denial of access to education, health assistance or remunerated employment because of the ethnic background of a girl/woman

0.874

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.874

  Denial of access to education, health assistance or remunerated employment because of the residence status of a girl/woman.

0.846

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.846

 PC4 – Social exclusion/ostracism

  Being treated differently by other people because of the sexual orientation of a girl/woman?

0.794

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.806

  Being treated differently by other people because of the ethnic background of a girl/woman?

0.780

  And if this happens to boys/men?

0.780

Table 4 shows the conceptualization of SGBV for residents and professionals from EARF grouped according to UNHCR SGBV definition [1].
Table 4

Residents and professionals – SGBV conceptualization, grouped according to UNHCR SGBV definition

Residents

Professionals

Sexual Violence

Sexual innuendo

Sexual innuendo

Visual sexual harassment

Visual sexual harassment

 –

Denudement

Marital rape

Abuse, rape and trafficking

Abuse, rape and trafficking

Sexual exploitation

Physical Violence

Physical assault without permanent consequences

Physical assault with permanent consequences

Psychological Violence

Humiliation

Threat and humiliation

 Confinement

Verbal violence

 –

Confinement – individual level

 –

Relational violence

 –

Parental relational violence

Harmful Cultural Practices

 Denial of education of girls and women

 Genital mutilation

Genital mutilation

 Early marriage

Early marriage

 Honor killing and Maiming

Honor killing and Maiming

Socio-economic Violence

 Discrimination

 Denial of opportunities and services

Denial of opportunities and services

 Denial of access to exercise civil, social, economic rights

 Social exclusion/ostracism based on sexual orientation

Social exclusion/ostracism

The association between each dimension of SGBV conceptualization and resident’s socio-demographic characteristics or professionals’ characteristics are presented in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. Our results describe whether, or not, what is considered a specific behavior/sexual act as violence is different according to sex, age, kind of accommodation (…). We will now describe the significant results first for residents and subsequently for professionals.
Table 5

Residents – SGBV conceptualization and socio-demographic characteristics (p-values: Chi-square Test and Fisher’s exact test)

Socio-demographic characteristics of Residents

Dimensions of SGBV Concept

Sexual

Psychological

Harmful Cultural Practices

Socio-economic

PC 12

PC 4

PC 9

PC 1

PC 3

PC 6

PC 10

PC 14

PC 11

PC 5

PC 13

PC 2

PC 8

PC 7

Host country

0.010

0.167

0.127

0.001

0.266

0.183

0.155

0.571

0.482

0.001

0.678

0.842

0.078

0.086

Sex

0.268

0.650

0.580

0.056

0.829

1.000

0.886

0.897

0.070

0.004

0.374

1.000

0.852

0.305

Age

0.185

0.625

0.001

0.212

0.806

0.032

0.059

0.545

0.470

0.042

0.616

1.000

0.105

0.174

Marital status

0.842

0.273

0.754

0.281

0.362

0.204

0.033

0.363

0.189

0.580

0.253

0.565

0.911

0.716

Having Children

0.104

1.000

0.243

0.288

0.289

0.125

0.502

0.530

0.295

0.874

0.498

1.000

1.000

0.801

Religion

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.344

0.344

0.065

0.019

0.520

0.425

0.489

0.489

1.000

1.000

0.275

Status immigration Law

0.195

0.087

1.000

0.321

0.626

0.798

1.000

0.124

0.328

1.000

0.161

1.000

0.458

0.064

Year of arrival Europe

0.708

1.000

0.544

0.281

1.000

0.773

0.679

0.484

0.603

0.679

0.079

1.000

0.340

0.018

Year of arrival to host country

0.458

1.000

0.513

0.075

1.000

0.737

0.618

0.420

0.543

1.000

0.295

1.000

0.280

0.007

Type of reception facility living

0.394

0.646

0.792

0.062

1.000

0.332

1.000

1.000

1.000

0.471

0.436

1.000

1.000

1.000

Kind of accommodation

0.026

0.439

0.001

0.388

0.934

0.056

0.951

0.520

1.000

0.123

0.728

0.645

0.207

0.603

Attained education

0.016

0.668

0.647

0.415

0.899

0.560

0.447

0.033

0.558

0.180

0.074

0.611

0.940

0.390

Daily activity country of origin

0.587

0.215

1.000

0.232

0.065

1.000

0.453

0.902

0.308

0.412

0.288

1.000

0.659

0.046

Daily activity host country

0.037

1.000

0.233

0.412

0.502

0.650

0.834

0.467

0.176

0.278

0.758

0.308

0.070

0.744

Significant p-value p < 0.05 bolded

PC 12: Sexual innuendo; PC 4: Visual sexual harassment; PC 9: Marital rape; PC 1: Abuse, rape and trafficking; PC 3: Humiliation; PC 6: Confinement; PC 10: Denial of education of girls and women; PC 14: Genital mutilation; PC 11: Early marriage; PC 5: Honor killing and maiming; PC 13: Discrimination; PC 2: Denial of opportunities and services; PC 8: Denial of access to exercise civil, social and economic rights; PC 7: Social exclusion/ostracism based on sexual orientation

Table 6

Professionals – SGBV conceptualization and socio-demographic characteristics (p-values: Chi-square Test and Fisher’s exact test)

Socio-demographic characteristics

Dimensions of SGBV Concept

Sexual violence

Physical Violence

Psychological violence

Harmful Cultural Practices

Socio-economic

PC 15

PC 3

PC 14

PC 1

PC 10

PC 8

PC 5

PC 12

PC 9

PC 13

PC 6

PC 16

PC 17

PC 7

PC 11

PC 2

PC 4

Host country

0.363

0.142

0.030

0.516

0.002

0.015

0.687

0.388

0.180

0.004

0.391

0.556

0.594

0.001

0.725

0.081

0.473

Sex

0.451

0.072

0.736

0.078

0.360

0.256

0.503

0.509

0.333

0.932

1.000

0.502

0.043

0.884

0.345

0.049

0.498

Age

0.618

1.000

0.106

0.021

0.647

0.443

0.937

0.126

0.068

0.801

1.000

0.488

0.618

0.871

1.000

0.441

0.483

Marital status

0.753

0.133

0.734

0.451

0.014

0.469

0.512

0.381

0.042

0.053

0.533

0.773

0.609

0.189

0.489

0.616

0.500

Religion

0.328

1.000

0.847

0.072

0.862

0.588

0.247

0.822

0.210

1.000

0.609

1.000

0.135

0.213

0.816

0.456

0.498

Status immigration Law

0.146

0.037

0.680

0.125

0.784

0.440

1.000

0.234

0.450

0.001

1.000

0.433

0.851

0.607

0.783

0.639

0.301

Type of reception Center working

0.851

0.551

0.397

0.497

0.073

0.487

0.829

0.189

0.833

0.282

0.630

0.763

0.734

0.027

0.373

0.229

0.300

Number of languages speaking

0.624

0.617

0.381

0.969

0.782

0.267

0.541

0.651

0.587

0.660

0.185

0.233

0.197

0.308

0.997

0.440

1.000

Number of languages needed at work

0.012

0.038

0.000

0.131

0.031

0.377

0.470

0.434

0.387

0.040

0.078

0.970

0.706

0.047

0.454

0.615

0.519

Actually working in a Reception center

0.192

1.000

0.125

0.425

0.817

0.649

0.762

0.064

1.000

0.005

1.000

0.674

0.192

0.031

0.443

0.568

0.685

Current occupation

0.720

0.593

0.063

0.696

0.213

0.193

0.747

0.235

0.079

0.460

0.833

0.469

0.836

0.353

0.528

0.930

0.819

Significant p-value p < 0.05 bolded

PC 15: Sexual innuendo; PC 3: Visual sexual harassment; PC 14: Denudement; PC 1: abuse, rape and trafficking; PC 10: Sexual exploitation; PC 8: Physical assault without permanent consequences; PC 5: Physical assault with permanent consequences;; PC 12: Threat and humiliation; PC 9: Verbal violence; PC 13: Confinement, individual level; PC 6: Relational violence; PC 16: Parental relational violence; PC 17: Genital mutilation; PC 7: Early marriage; PC 11: Honor killing and maiming; PC 2: Denial of opportunities and services; PC 4: Social exclusion and ostracism

Residents

Sexual violence

For residents, sexual innuendo conceptualization was associated with the host country (p = 0.010), kind of accommodation (p = 0.026), the level of education of residents (p = 0.016) and daily activity in the host country (p = 0.037). This mean that residents living in Belgium and Ireland, in a container, studio or room, with an education (primary, secondary or higher), or do not have a job in the host country tend to disagree that sexual innuendo is a type of SGBV.

Marital rape was associated with the age of residents (p = 0.001), and the kind of accommodation where they were living in (p = 0.001). Youth and adults’ residents (0–39 years old) or residents living in containers, room or studio tend to disagree that marital rape is a form of violence. Abuse, rape and trafficking was associated with host country (p = 0.001). Residents that tend to disagree were hosted in Portugal and Spain.

Psychological violence

The concept of confinement was significantly associated with age (p = 0.032), meaning that residents aged until 18 years old tend to disagree with confinement as a form of violence.

Harmful cultural practices

Denial of education for girls was associated with marital status (p = 0.033) and the fact of having (or not) a religion (p = 0.019). Single residents tend to fully agree with this as a form of violence. The conceptualization of genital mutilation as a form of violence was associated with attained education (p = 0.033).

Honor killing and maiming conceptualization was associated with the country of research (p = 0.001), sex (male or female) (p = 0.004) and age (p = 0.042) of residents. Residents hosted in Belgium and Greece, male or aged from 19 to 39 years old tend to disagree with this concept as a form of violence.

Socio-economic violence

The concept of social exclusion based on sexual orientation was associated with the time of arrival to Europe or hosting country (p = 0.018 and 0.007), and daily activity in the country of origin (p = 0.046). Residents that arrived recently to the host country or Europe (less than 5 years) or used to have a job in the country of origin tends to fully disagree that social exclusion based on sexual orientation is a form of violence.

Professionals

Sexual violence

For professionals, sexual innuendo was associated with language skills (p = 0.012). Professionals with good language skills (at least 2 EU languages) tend to fully disagree. Visual sexual harassment conceptualization was associated with language skills (p = 0.038) and status immigration law (p = 0.037). The tendency to disagree was found in professionals without the national citizenship and basic language skills (1 EU language). Denudement was associated with the hosting country and language skills (p = 0.030, p = 0.000, respectively). Professionals from Portugal or with basic language skills (1 EU language) tend to fully disagree. Abuse, rape and trafficking conceptualization was different according to the age of professionals (p = 0.021). Older professionals (> then 40 years old) tend to fully disagree. Further, sexual exploitation as a form of violence was associated with hosting country, marital status and language skills (p = 0.002, p = 0.014 and p = 0.031). Tendency to fully disagree were found in professionals from Malta, Netherlands and Portugal, married or with good language skills (1 EU and 1 non-EU language).

Physical violence

The concept of physical assault without permanent consequences as form of violence was significantly associated with hosting country (p = 0.015). Professionals working in Hungary tend to fully disagree.

Psychological violence

Verbal violence was associated with marital status (p = 0.042), with single professionals disagreeing more than the average of respondents. Confinement (individual level) as a form of violence was associated with host country (p = 0.004), status of immigration (p = 0.001), language skills (p = 0.040) and the fact of being working (p = 0.005). Professionals that have a tendency to fully disagree were from Belgium and the Netherland, without the national citizenship, with good language skills (2 EU languages) or with a current job at the time of the questionnaire.

Harmful cultural practices

Genital mutilation was associated with professionals’ sex (p = 0.043), meaning that male professionals tend to fully disagree with it as an act of violence. Early marriage as form of violence was different according to the hosting country, type of reception facility, language skills or the fact of being working (p = 0.001, p = 0.027, p = 0.047 and p = 0.031). Professionals working in Belgium, in open reception facilities or with good language skills tend to fully disagree.

Socio-economic violence

Denial of opportunities and services as a form of SGBV was associated with sex (p = 0.049) and female professionals tend to fully disagree that it represents a form of violence.

In sum, our results suggest that professionals from EARF considered more behaviors as violence than residents.

Discussion

The scientific understanding of violence and more specifically SGBV is primordial [6] to enhance primary preventive measures. In this sense, if we want to prevent violence in the EARF, understanding the knowledge that residents and professionals have regarding SGBV conceptualization is needed. Our study explored SGBV conceptualization according to residents and professionals from EARF, covering a myriad of countries of origin of the refugees, AS and migrants. Our results show a disparity between what is, or what is not considered a violent behavior. Professionals have shown to have a wider knowledge then residents, considering more acts as violence. We believe this can be related to residents – refugees, AS and undocumented migrants – being described as more vulnerable to SGBV and professionals assuming a privileged position and control towards residents [24].

Conceptualization is a process of development and clarification of concepts; it shapes the field in which a concept is understood, measured and evaluated [30]. Different SGBV conceptualization can be found in the literature. Walby [8] refers that different definitions are used for assault and for rape, which are inconsistent and out of alignment with international law. Also, different SGBV conceptualizations were found in our results for residents and professionals. To consider that definitions of violence have evolved through multiple variations according to the field and the range of forms of violence [30]. A consistent and coherent measurement of violence against women and men will benefit accuracy while measuring changes in society and effectiveness of public services [8]. Given this, we believe a common SGBV conceptualization should be considered while addressing preventive measures. The requisite for developing information, education and communication (IEC) interventions addressing SGBV has already been acknowledged by UNHCR (2003). We believe our results call for the urgent need for IEC interventions, addressing what is, or what is not an SGBV act.

For both groups differences in SGBV conceptualization were found based on specific socio-demographic characteristics. As for gender, our results evoke no differences in SGBV conceptualization. Moreover, the fact that a violent act is directed to a girl/woman or a boy/man is equally considered violence, even though the majority of victims continue to be women [13] However, moving from SGBV conceptualization to specific types of SGBV differences arise. When conducting association tests between types of SGBV and the gender of our respondents we found significant associations. A more in-depth analysis suggests male residents tend to disagree that honor killing and maiming is an SGBV act when compared with the mean average of our respondents. Moreover, male professionals disagree with genital mutilation as a form of SGBV, and female professionals tend to disagree with the denial of opportunities as a form of SGBV.

Another relevant association was found between age and specific forms of SGBV. Results from our study, found that professionals aged above 40 tended to disagree that “abuse, rape and trafficking” is a form of SGBV. This association is particularly screaming for action, once we assist to professionals working with persons, already in a vulnerable situation, and assuming that a behavior legally punishable by law is acceptable. Considering that professionals play an important role in SGBV prevention, and the fact that they are in a privileged position to mitigate SGBV, we believe that our results are screaming for action. From one side we assist to professionals having a broader SGBV conceptualization when compared with residents. However, professionals aged above 40, do not consider abuse, rape and trafficking as a form of SGBV. In this sense, we believe there is a need for a strict screening when engaging professionals to work in EARF and continuous sensitization and training on SGBV. Our results are aligned with previous evidence reporting the requirement for healthcare workers’ regular training [25], integrated and widespread preventive and response measures [14]. Furthermore, professionals and persons in power working with migrants and refugees have been identified as potential perpetrators of SGBV [12, 24, 25]. In EARF context, professionals have been identified as potential perpetrators of SGBV, especially socio-economic violence [14].

Specific types of SGBV not being recognized as a violent act is of major importance while addressing preventive measures in asylum centers. Residents and professionals must have a complete and equal knowledge regarding all types of SGBV to avoid being victims and/or aggressors. Placing SGBV in a public health perspective, we can assume SGBV conceptualization is the baseline for primary prevention [5]. Furthermore, significant association with socio-demographic characteristics have arisen from our results. This fact shows the importance of recognizing the intersectionality of SGBV concepts [8, 27] with characteristics, such as gender, age, social status. We call for an urgent action from all stakeholders to increase the knowledge on SGBV of residents and professionals, based on IEC interventions, as the baseline to prevent violence before it occurs.

Future pertinent research regards the potential association between SGBV conceptualization and case disclosure. Moreover, it is of utmost importance to have a clear and in-depth understanding of professionals’ SGBV conceptualization. The fact that professionals might perpetuate SGBV acts, and exercise a higher power relation towards residents, represents a call for intervention. We challenge researchers to go beyond the understanding of professionals’ SGBV conceptualization and to consider the influence of it with the potential perpetuation of violence. Another relevant aspect to consider in the future regards the evaluation of primary preventive measures, and specifically the focus on promoting and implementing a widespread SGBV conceptualization among residents, professionals and host population. If we reach a level where professionals and residents have similar SGBV conceptualization, will we still witness such high levels of SGBV?

Even though relevant findings were described it is important to acknowledge potential limitations. The Senperforto project applied multi-types of sampling methods, as random and representative sampling were not possible in all countries. However, even though our results cannot be generalized, we believe it can be transferable to similar populations in comparable contexts, in a sense that a broad SGBV conceptualization is presented in our research – understanding refugees, AS and undocumented migrants’ perspective and also professional’s perspective. Specifically related with SGBV conceptualization, we cannot exclude that community researchers conducting the interviews during the implementation of Senperforto project, could have had a different SGBV conceptualization, even with the implementation of a standardized training.

Stepping out of EARF, it would be pertinent to compare SGBV conceptualization between migrants and hosting population, once public health policies should be adapted to the cultural and structural context. Moreover, it is important to consider the challenge of having refugees, AS and undocumented migrants with different SGBV conceptualization “integrated” in European countries, especially if they have a narrow concept. Accordingly, we believe migrants might be exposed to higher vulnerability to both victimization and perpetration. Considering the recent migration wave to European countries, it urges to address this issue. SGBV conceptualization needs to be addressed equally, not only for migrants and professionals, but also for hosting populations. What is or what is not an SGBV act should not differ according to a migration status. By not doing it, we believe European countries and its representatives might be increasing migrants’ vulnerability and inducing obstacles to their integration.

Conclusion

Residents and professionals from European asylum centers have a different concept of what SGBV entails with professionals considering more acts as violence then residents. However, types of SGBV were considered equally violent if afflicted upon female or male. Some acts that were not considered violence by the professionals are legally a crime, increasing the perpetration risk.

The Socio-Ecological Model as an explanatory model of SGBV helps moving from the individual conceptualization of SGBV to a societal conceptualization considering the influences of relational, community and societal factors [31].

SGBV conceptualization is the core to primary prevention of SGBV and it should focus on harmonizing the concept, IEC activities, training and “collegiate” discussion/participatory activities towards consensus and European policies. What is considered (or not) a violent behavior should be taken into consideration if we want to mitigate SGBV.

We call for the development, implementation and monitoring of European-wide SGBV prevention programs in EARC context, aligned with SGBV conceptualization of the target population.

Abbreviations

EARF: 

European asylum reception facilities

SGBV: 

sexual and gender-based violence

AS: 

asylum-seeker

UNHCR: 

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

EU: 

European Union

PCA: 

principal component analysis

PC: 

principal component

KAP: 

knowledge, attitudes and practices

IEC: 

information, education and communication

Declarations

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Academic Network for Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights Policy –ANSER for having granted us the opportunity to further analyse the Senperforto data cross-nationally,, which contributes to the definition of primary preventive measures for SGBV internationally. ANSER promotes sexual and reproductive health research and its translation into policies.

Funding

The Senperforto project was funded by European Daphne Fund (JLS/2007/DAP-1/084).

Availability of data and materials

Please contact the author for data requests.

Authors’ contributions

IK designed and coordinated Senperforto project. IK and SD contributed to the sampling and recruitment of respondents, the data gathering and first analysis. CO continued with the in-depth analysis of the data, to which all authors contributed as well as to the design, the writing, and the revision of drafts of this paper. Finally, all the authors have read and agreed on the final paper.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The Senperforto study protocol applied the WHO and UNHCR ethical and safety guidelines in researching violence, complied with the local ethical requirements and received ethical approval from Ghent University Hospital Ethical Committee [B67020096667].

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Global Health and Tropical Medicine, GHTM, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, IHMT, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Rua da Junqueira 100, 1349-008 Lisbon, Portugal
(2)
Centro de Investigação em Saúde Pública, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal
(3)
International Centre for Reproductive Health, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Faculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

References

  1. UNHCR. Sexual and gender-based violence against refugees, Returnees and internally displaced persons - guidelines for prevention and response. 2003.Google Scholar
  2. World Health Organization. World report on violence and health: summary. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2002.Google Scholar
  3. Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Guidelines for integrating gender-based violence interventions in humanitarian action: reducing risk, promoting resilience and aiding recovery; 2015. p. 1–366. Available from: http://gbvguidelines.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/2015-IASC-Gender-based-Violence-Guidelines_lo-res.pdf Google Scholar
  4. Lori JR, Boyle JS. Forced migration: health and human rights issues among refugee populations. Nurs Outlook. 2015;63(1):68–76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2014.10.008View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB. The world report on violence and health. Lancet. 2002;360(9339):1083–8 Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673602111330.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. de Haan W. Violence as an essentially contested concept. In: Body-Gendrot S, Spierenburg P, editors. Violence in Europe. New York: Springer New York; 2008. p. 27–40. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-0-387-74508-4_3.Google Scholar
  7. Keygnaert I, Guieu A. What the eye does not see: a critical interpretive synthesis of European Union policies addressing sexual violence in vulnerable migrants. Reprod Health Matters. 2015;23(46):45–55.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Walby S, Towers J, Balderston S, Corradi C, Francis B, Heiskanen M, et al. The concept and measurement of violence sharing economy against women measurement of violence. Bristol: Policy Press; 2017.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Salman KF, Resick LK. The description of health among Iraqi refugee women in the United States. J Immigr Minor Heal. 2015;17(4):1199–205 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10903-014-0035-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Keygnaert I. Sexual violence and sexual health in refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in Europe and the European Neighbourhood : determinants and desirable prevention. Ghent: Ghent University; Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2014.Google Scholar
  11. Santos-Hövener C, Marcus U, Koschollek C, Oudini H, Wiebe M, Ouedraogo OI, et al. Determinants of HIV, viral hepatitis and STI prevention needs among African migrants in Germany; a cross-sectional survey on knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and practices. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):753 Available from: http://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-015-2098-2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Arsenijević J, Schillberg E, Ponthieu A, Malvisi L, Ahmed WAE, Argenziano S, et al. A crisis of protection and safe passage: violence experienced by migrants/refugees travelling along the Western Balkan corridor to Northern Europe. Confl Health. 2017;11(1):6 Available from: http://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13031-017-0107-z.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Keygnaert I, Vettenburg N, Temmerman M. Hidden violence is silent rape: sexual and gender-based violence in refugees, asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in Belgium and the Netherlands. Cult Health Sex. 2012;14(5):505–20 Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2012.671961.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Keygnaert I, Dias SF, Degomme O, Deville W, Kennedy P, Kovats A, et al. Sexual and gender-based violence in the European asylum and reception sector: a perpetuum mobile? Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(1):90–6 Available from: https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/eurpub/cku066.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development: experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1979.Google Scholar
  16. Blazek M. Migration, vulnerability and the complexity of violence: experiences of documented non-EU migrants in Slovakia. Geoforum. 2014;56:101–112. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718514001535View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Boxer P, Rowell Huesmann L, Dubow EF, Landau SF, Gvirsman SD, Shikaki K, et al. Exposure to violence across the social ecosystem and the development of aggression: a test of ecological theory in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Child Dev. 2013;84(1):163–77 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01848.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. World Health Organization. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. Basile KC, DeGue S, Jones K, Freire K, Dills J, Smith SG, et al. STOP SV: a technical package to prevent sexual violence. Atlanta; 2016. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-prevention-technical-package.pdf. Accessed 20 sep 2018.
  20. Krahé B, Berger A, Vanwesenbeeck I, Bianchi G, Chliaoutakis J, Fernández-Fuertes AA, et al. Prevalence and correlates of young people’s sexual aggression perpetration and victimisation in 10 European countries: a multi-level analysis. Cult Health Sex. 2015;17(6):682–99. Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2014.989265.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Minh A, Matheson F, Daoud N, Hamilton-Wright S, Pedersen C, Borenstein H, et al. Linking childhood and adult criminality: using a life course framework to examine childhood abuse and neglect, substance use and adult partner violence. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2013;10(11):5470–89 Available from: http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/10/11/5470/.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Pottie K, Dahal G, Georgiades K, Premji K, Hassan G. Do first generation immigrant adolescents face higher rates of bullying, violence and suicidal Behaviours than do third generation and native born? J Immigr Minor Health. 2015;17:1557–66 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10903-014-0108-6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee BX, Kjaerulf F, Turner S, Cohen L, Donnelly PD, Muggah R, et al. Transforming our world: implementing the 2030 agenda through sustainable development goal indicators. J Public Health Policy. 2016;37(S1):13–31 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41271-016-0002-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Keygnaert I, Dialmy A, Manco A, Keygnaert J, Vettenburg N, Roelens K, et al. Sexual violence and sub-Saharan migrants in Morocco: a community-based participatory assessment using respondent driven sampling. Glob Health. 2014;10:32 Available from: http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/10/1/32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. van de Ameele S, Keygnaert I, Rachidi A, Roelens K, Temmerman M. The role of the healthcare sector in the prevention of sexual violence against sub- Saharan transmigrants in Morocco : a study of knowledge , attitudes and practices of healthcare workers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):77 Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/13/77.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. World Health Organization. Violence prevention: the evidence. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Walby S, Strid S. Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social Theory; 2012.Google Scholar
  28. Keygnaert I, Vangenechten J, Devillé W, Frans E, Temmerman M. Senperforto Frame of Reference for Prevention of SGBV in the European Reception and Asylum Sector. Ghent: Magelaan cvba; 2010.Google Scholar
  29. Abdi H, Williams LJ. Principal component analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat. 2010;2(4):433–59 Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wics.101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Scriver S, Duvvry N, Ashe S, Raghavendra S, O’Donovan D. Conceptualising violence: a holistic approach to understanding violence against women and girls. 2015; Available from: http://www.whatworks.co.za Google Scholar
  31. Gilligan J, Lee BX, Garg S, Blay-Tofey M, Luo A. A case for studying country regimes in the public health model of violence. J Public Health Policy. 2016;37(S1):133–44 Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41271-016-0027-y.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2019

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement