(3.238.173.209) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/05/16 19:51
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果

詳目顯示:::

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:陳心怡
研究生(外文):Shin-Yi Chen
論文名稱:親密伴侶暴力導致的常見傷害型態與傷害分佈之分析–以台北市某醫學中心為例
論文名稱(外文):Common Types and Locations of Injuries in Intimate Partner Violence – A Study of a Medical Center in Taipei
指導教授:華筱玲華筱玲引用關係
指導教授(外文):Hsiao-Lin Hwa
口試委員:沈瓊桃宋賢儀張琳
口試日期:2013-06-28
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立臺灣大學
系所名稱:法醫學研究所
學門:醫藥衛生學門
學類:其他醫藥衛生學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2013
畢業學年度:101
語文別:中文
論文頁數:93
中文關鍵詞:親密伴侶暴力非親密伴侶暴力家庭暴力創傷型態創傷位置
外文關鍵詞:Intimate partner violenceNon-intimate partner violenceDomestic violenceInjury patternInjury site
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:252
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
親密伴侶暴力是全球性的社會問題,綜觀各國已有許多有關親密伴侶暴力傷害的研究,然而目前台灣對於親密伴侶暴力傷害型態的報告有限。因此,我們想藉由這次的研究統計來瞭解親密伴侶暴力傷害的特色,提供法醫師及臨床醫療人員做為參考,並能依據研究結果篩檢或評估親密伴侶暴力受害人,達到防治的目的。
本研究是收集2001年到2011年間到台大醫院診治的家庭暴力被害人(倖存者)個案的病歷資料。案件中被害者與加害者的關係為現有或過去曾有親密關係、約會對象或同居關係。本研究對照組為2001年至2011年間台大醫院的其他暴力受害人個案,其加害者與病患非親密關係、約會關係或同居關係者。傷害的依據主要為病患就診時的病歷、驗傷單、診斷證明、身體評估記錄。
我們共收集了親密伴侶暴力個案547件,其中女性佔95.4% (522/547),平均年齡38.5歲,男性佔4.6%(25/547),平均年齡43.2歲。對照組女性非親密伴侶個案共189件,平均年齡35.4歲。對照組男性非親密伴侶個案共103件,平均年齡38.1歲。分析其受傷部位,最常見有傷的部位在女性皆為臉部,其次為上肢。在親密伴侶暴力女性為55.4%(289/522)及52.7%(275/522),而非親密伴侶暴力女性為52.4%(99/189)及46%(87/189),兩組無明顯差異。在親密伴侶暴力男性受害人最常見有傷的部位是上肢(68%,17/25)其次是臉(40%,10/25),而在非親密伴侶暴力男性受害人最常見為臉部(59.2%,61/103)其次是上肢(44.7%, 46/103)。親密伴侶組女性與非親密伴侶組女性比較,有顯著差異者為親密伴侶組臀部有傷之比率4.6% (24/522)較非親密伴侶組0.5%(1/189)高(P=0.009);親密伴侶組下肢有傷之比率28.4% (148/522)較非親密伴侶組17.5% (33/189)高(P=0.003)、親密伴侶組左上臂有傷之比率20.3% (106/522)較非親密伴侶組6.9%(13/189)高(P<0.001)、親密伴侶組右上臂有傷之比率17.6% (92/522)較非親密伴侶組7.4% (14/189)高(P=0.001)。男性親密伴侶暴力受害者右上臂有傷佔16.0%(4/25),高於男性非親密伴侶暴力的1.9%(2/103)且達統計學上顯著差異(P=0.013)。男、女性親密伴侶暴力最常見的傷害為挫傷各佔64%(16/25)、76.1% (397/522),與擦傷各佔60.0%(15/25)、27.4%(143/522)。男、女非親密伴侶暴力最常見傷害為挫傷各佔52.4%(54/103)、54.5%(103/189),與擦傷各佔44.7% (46/103)、31.8%(60/189)。總傷痕數在女性親密伴侶組平均每人4.42個傷害,而女性非親密伴侶組每人平均3.67個傷害,兩組呈現顯著差異(P=0.039)。
依據本研究結果得知,無論男女,臉部與上肢是親密伴侶暴力與非親密伴侶暴力最常見的傷害分布。女性親密伴侶暴力在臀部、下肢、左右上臂的傷害比女性非親密伴侶暴力多,男性親密伴侶暴力在右上臂傷害比男性非親密伴侶暴力多。挫傷與擦傷是親密伴侶暴力與非親密伴侶暴力最常見的傷害型態。本研究比較親密伴侶暴力與非親密伴侶暴力的受傷型態,可以提供臨床法醫及醫療人員實務工作參考。


Intimate partner violence is a worldwide problem. There are many researches about injuries of intimate partner violence in other countries; nevertheless, that was deficient in our country. The purpose of this study is to investigate injury patterns in intimate partner violence in our country.
We reviewed the medical records of intimate partner violence survivors who were evaluated or treated at National Taiwan University Hospital between 2001 and 2011. All patients were interviewed and were identified as intimate partner violence survivors by social workers. The non-intimate partner violence victims who were evaluated or treated at National Taiwan University Hospital between 2001 and 2011 were recruited as control group. Information including age, gender, relationship between victim and offender, types of injuries, and sites of injuries was collected.
There were 547 cases of intimate partner violence recruited. Almost ninety five percent (95.4%, 522/547) victims were female with an average age of 38.5, whereas 4.6% (25/547) victims of intimate partner violence were male with an average age of 43.2. There were 189 female and 103 male victims of non-intimate partner violence recruited, with an average age of 35.4 and 38.1, respectively. The most common site of injuries in both female intimate partner violence survivors and non-intimate partner violence victims was facial region (55.4%, 289/522 and 52.4%, 99/189), followed by upper limbs (52.7%, 275/522 and 46%, 87/189). The most common site of injuries in male intimate partner violence survivors was upper limbs (68%, 17/25), followed by facial region (40%, 10/25). The most common site of injuries in male non-intimate partner violence victims was facial region (59.2%, 61/103), followed by upper limbs (44.7%, 46/103). In female, injuries at buttock (4.6%, 24/522) were more likely to present in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims (0.5%, 1/189)(P=0.009). Injuries at lower limbs (28.4%, 148/522) were more likely to present in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims ( 17.5% , 33/189)(P=0.003). Injuries at left upper arm (20.3%, 106/522) were more likely to present in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with victims of non-intimate partner violence victims (6.9%,13/189)(P<0.001). Injuries at right upper arm (17.6%, 92/522) were more likely to present in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims (7.4%, 14/189)(P=0.001). In male, injuries at right upper arm (16%,4/25) were more likely to present in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims (1.9%,2/103)(P=0.013). Bruise was the most common type of injuries in all groups, followed by abrasion. The prevalence of bruises were 76.1% (397/522) in female intimate partner violence survivors, 54.5% (103/189) in female non-intimate partner violence victims, 64% (16/25) in male intimate partner violence survivors, 52.4% (54/103) in male non-intimate partner violence victims. The average of numbers of injuries was 4.42 in female intimate partner violence survivors, and 3.67 in female non-intimate partner violence victims, with significant difference (P=0.039).
In conclusion, facial region and upper limbs were the most common sites of injuries both in intimate partner violence survivors and non-intimate partner violence victims. In female, injuries at buttock region, lower limbs, and bilateral upper arms were more common in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims. In male, injuries at right upper arms were more common in intimate partner violence survivors, compared with non-intimate partner violence victims. Besides, bruises and abrasions were the most common injuries in all four groups of victims.
We present the patterns of injuries of intimate partner violence and non-intimate partner violence with comparison in both gender. This data will be helpful for clinical forensic examiners and healthcare providers in casework.


口試委員會審定書 ………………………………………………………I
誌謝………………………………………………………………………II
中文摘要 ………………………………………………………………III
Abstract …………………………………………………………………V
目錄……………………………………………………………………VIII
圖目錄 ……………………………………………………………………X
表目錄……………………………………………………………………XI
第一章 研究背景 ……………………………………………………1
第一節 前言 …………………………………………………………1
第二節 文獻回顧 ……………………………………………………2
第三節 研究動機與目的……………………………………………11
第二章 研究方法與材料……………………………………………12
第一節 資料來源………………………………………………12
第二節 研究流程………………………………………………12
第三節 資料分析………………………………………………14
第三章 研究結果……………………………………………………15
第一節 親密伴侶暴力的人口統計學及案發情況統計………15
第二節 非親密伴侶暴力的人口統計學與案發情況統計……18
第三節 親密伴侶與非親密伴侶傷害的比較…………………20
第四章 討論…………………………………………………………30
第一節 研究結果討論…………………………………………30
第二節 研究限制………………………………………………38
第五章 結論…………………………………………………………39
參考文獻………………………………………………………………40
附件一…………………………………………………………………70
附件二…………………………………………………………………71
附件三…………………………………………………………………72
附件四…………………………………………………………………76


內政部 家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會
王麗容, 陳芬苓.台灣地區婚姻暴力問題之調查研究.內政部委託研究. 2003
林慧芬. 婚姻暴力施暴者處預理論及模式探討. 國政研究報告. 2002
吳柳嬌.婚姻暴力的成因與處遇之研究.國立中山大學中山學術研究所 博士論文. 2005
邱鈺鸞,楊聰財,高森永,簡戊鑑.台灣1997-2008年親密伴侶暴力住院傷患特性. 護理暨健康照護研究.2011;7:140-150
美國疾病管制局 http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence
黃志中.婚姻暴力被忽略的一角-精神虐待.第六屆 全國婦女國是會議 會議倫文集. 2001
黃志中,陳三能,黃旼儀 等. 婚姻暴力受虐婦女的身體症狀. 台灣家醫誌 2004;14:25-34
鄭倩樺,鍾其祥,簡戊鑑.利用傷害型態及醫療利用辨識親密伴侶暴力受虐者. 醫務管理期刊. 2012;13:32-47
Bair-Merritt MH. Intimate partner violence. Pediatr Rev.2010; 31:145-150
Berrios DC, Grady D. Domestic violence- Risk factors and outcomes. The West Journal of Medicine. 1991;155:133-135
Bhandari M, Dosanjh S, Torntta P et al. Musculoskeletal manifestations of physical abuse after intimate partner violence. The Journal of Trauma Injury, Ifection, and Critical Care. 2005;61: 1473-1479
Burkert NT, Rasky E, Freidl W et al. Female and male victims of violence in an urban emergency room- prevalence, sociodemographic characteristics, alcohol intake, and injury patterns. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2013;125:134-138
Carmo R, Grams A, Magalhaes T. Men as victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2011;18:355-359
Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I et al. Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. American Journal of Preventive Medicine.2002;23:260-268
Ellsberg M, Jansen H, Heise L et al. Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet.2008;371:1165-1172
Exadaktylos A.K, Hauselmann S, Zimmermann. Are times getting tougher? A six-year survey of urban violence-related injuries in a Swiss university hospital. Swiss Medical Weekly. 2007;137:525-530
Fansloe JL, Robinson EM. Physical injuries resulting from intimate partner violence and disclosure to healthcare providers: results from a New Zealand population-based study. Injury Prevention. 2011;17:37-42
Flitcraft A, Hadley SM, Hendricks-Mathews M et al. Diagnostic and treatment guidelines on domestic violence. American Medical Association. 1992
Garbin CAS, Queiroz APD, Rovida TAS et al. Occurrence of traumatic dental injury in cases of domestic violence. Braz Dent Journal. 2012;23:72-76
Ismayilova L, El-Bassel N. Prevalence and correlates of intimate partner violence by type and severity: population-based studies in Azerbailan, Moldova, and Ukraine. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2013, http://jiv.sagepub.com/content/
early/2013/03/12/0886260513479026
Kenney JP. Domestic violence: a complex health care issue for dentistry today. Forensic Science International. 2006;159:121-125
Le BT, Dierks EJ, Ueeck BA et al. Maxillofacial injuries associated with domestic violence. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. 2001;59: 1277-1283
Makara-Studzinska M, Gustaw K. Intimate partner violence by men abusing and non-abusing alcohol in Poland. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2007;4:76-80
Neroien AI, Schei S. Partner violence and health: results from the first national study on violence against women in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health.2008;36:161-168
Peltzer K, Pengpid S, McFarlane J et al. Metal health consequences of intimate partner violence in Vhembe district, South Africa. General Hospital Psychiatry. 2013,http://dx.doi.org/10/1016/j.genhosppsych.2013.04.001
Perciaccante VJ, Ocbs HA, Dodson TB. Head, neck, and facial injuries as markers of domestic violence in women. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.1999;57:760-762
Petridou E, Browne A, Lichter E et al. What distinguishes unintentional injuries from injuries due to intimate partner violence: a study in Greek ambulatory care settings. Injury Prevention.2002; 8:197-201
Saddki N, Suhaimi AA, Daud R. Maxillofacial injuries associated with intimate partner violence in women. BMC Pubic Health. 2010,10:268
Shanko W, Wolday M, Assefa N, Aro AR. Domestic violence against women in Kersa, Oromia region, eastern. Eastern Mediterranean Health Journal. 2013;1918 -1923
Valdez-Santiago R, Hilar M, Martinez RR et al. Prevalence and severity of intimate partner violence in women living in eight indigenous region of Mexico. Social Science & Medicine.2013;82:51-57
Waller MW, Iritani BJ, Christ SL et al. Perpetration of intimate partner violence by young adult males: the association with alcohol outlet density and drinking behavior. Health & Place.2013;21:10-19
Zazryn TR, Finch CF, McCrory P. A 16 year study of injuries to professional boxers in the state of Victoria, Australia. Br J Sports Med. 2003;37:321-324


QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top