Food industry's interactions with nutrition professionals in Australia: a survey.

Intimate partner violence (IPV), which is commonly referred to as domestic violence (DV) or relationship violence, includes the physical, sexual, emotional, and financial abuse, among other controlling behaviors committed by a current or former intimate partner (Office for Victims of Crime [OVC], ; Office on Women’s Health [OWH], (). IPV is a significant public health concern that impacts the physical and mental health of millions of individuals throughout their lives, resulting in injury, disability, or death of victims in the most severe cases (Leemis et al., ). Moreover, IPV has negative consequences for communities and society, including increased public health costs, strain on social service agencies, and overall public safety. Studies on IPV trends in the United States (US) and worldwide have shown an alarming picture of abuse and violence during the COVID-19 pandemic, warranting greater attention. There remains a considerable gap in the literature on the risk and protective factors of IPV during the pandemic, particularly social support, which may provide important leverage for mitigating IPV and prevention in general and in future public health emergencies (Dutton & Goodman, ). Understanding the key risk and protective factors against IPV during the pandemic helps validate known risk factors and identify new ones that may exacerbate violence at home in the post-crisis/emergency period. The current study uses a social-ecological and social advocacy framework to address an existing gap by collecting data from victim service providers (VSPs) in the USA who have direct experience assisting IPV survivors. The aim is to improve our understanding of risk factors at the individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels, and to explore protective factors, including neighborhood-level social support, that can help mitigate escalation, thereby informing social prevention strategies to effectively tackle IPV, a complex public health issue. The early, predominantly US-based studies identified several correlates of IPV risk factors at the individual and relationship levels, and a limited number of IPV risk and protective factors at the community and societal levels. Notably, recent meta-analyses grounded in ecological theoretical frameworks have demonstrated that some of the previously identified factors can exert stronger influences (see also Adames & Campbell, ; Ahrens et al., ; Benuto & Bennett, ; Goncalves & Matos, ; Natarajan, ). Given the complex nature of IPV, a private yet social problem, studies using Bronfenbrenner’s () Ecological Systems Theory (EST) have sought to understand the dynamic interactions among IPV risk factors within the immediate physical setting and across social environments, including the larger community and the social support system. Based on EST, a four-level social-ecological model of violence, and a review of 19 research studies, several factors have been identified that affect the risk of IPV perpetration at the individual, relationship, community, and society levels (CDC, ). Specifically, the CDC highlighted the association between IPV perpetration risk and the following factors: (1) biological and historical factors at the individual level, (2) the nature of close relationships in an individual’s social network, (3) characteristics of community settings, and (4) societal factors, such as social and cultural norms, policies, and regulations within a society.