↓ Skip to main content

The Role of PTSD in Bi-directional Intimate Partner Violence in Military and Veteran Populations: A Research Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Role of PTSD in Bi-directional Intimate Partner Violence in Military and Veteran Populations: A Research Review
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01394
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gabriela Misca, Mary Ann Forgey

Abstract

Evidence supporting the higher prevalence of PTSD linked to combat-related trauma in military personnel and veteran populations is well-established. Consequently, much research has explored the effects that combat related trauma and the subsequent PTSD may have on different aspects of relationship functioning and adjustment. In particular, PTSD in military and veterans has been linked with perpetrating intimate partner violence (IPV). New research and theoretical perspectives suggest that in order to respond effectively to IPV, a more accurate understanding of the direction of the violence experienced within each relationship is critical. In both civilian and military populations, research that has examined the direction of IPV's, bi-directional violence have been found to be highly prevalent. Evidence is also emerging as to how these bi-directional violence differ in relation to severity, motivation, physical and psychological consequences and risk factors. Of particular importance within military IPV research is the need to deepen understanding about the role of PTSD in bi-directional IPV not only as a risk factor for perpetration but also as a vulnerability risk factor for victimization, as findings from recent research suggest. This paper provides a timely, critical review of emergent literature to disentangle what is known about bi-directional IPV patterns in military and veteran populations and the roles that military or veterans' PTSD may play within these patterns. Although, this review aimed to identify global research on the topic, the majority of research meeting the inclusion criteria was from US, with only one study identified from outside, from Canada. Strengths and limitations in the extant research are identified. Directions for future research are proposed with a particular focus on the kinds of instruments and designs needed to better capture the complex interplay of PTSD and bi-directional IPV in military populations and further the development of effective interventions.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 22%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Master 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 29%
Social Sciences 5 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Neuroscience 4 8%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 4%
Other 5 10%
Unknown 15 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 June 2022.
All research outputs
#8,683,181
of 26,367,306 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#12,365
of 35,210 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,528
of 331,732 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#296
of 578 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,367,306 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 35,210 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,732 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 578 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.