1 / 19

Partner Age Difference, Power, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sexual Risk In Adolescent Girls

Partner Age Difference, Power, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sexual Risk In Adolescent Girls. Ellen M. Volpe, PhD, FNP, Thomas Hardie , EdD , PMHCNS-BC , Catherine Cerulli , PhD, JD, Marilynn S. Sommers , PhD, RN, FAAN, and Dianne Morrison- Beedy , PhD, RN, FAAN.

vilina
Download Presentation

Partner Age Difference, Power, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sexual Risk In Adolescent Girls

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Partner Age Difference, Power, Intimate Partner Violence, and Sexual Risk In Adolescent Girls Ellen M. Volpe, PhD, FNP, Thomas Hardie, EdD, PMHCNS-BC , Catherine Cerulli, PhD, JD, Marilynn S. Sommers, PhD, RN, FAAN, and Dianne Morrison-Beedy, PhD, RN, FAAN

  2. Funding Acknowledgments • National Institutes of Mental Health • F31MH082646-01A2 (PI E.Volpe, Sponsor: D. Morrison-Beedy) • National Institutes of Nursing Research • T32NR007100, (PI M. Sommers) • Sigma Theta Tau, Epsilon Chapter • Susan B. Anthony Institute

  3. Background • Adolescent girls with older male partners at increased risk for HIV/STIs (e.g. Seth et al., 2010, Ryan et al., 2008, Senn et al., 2011) • Relationship power assumed to be the theoretical link between older partners and sexual risk behaviors (e.g. DiClemente et al., 2002; Teitelmanet al., 2011) • Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been linked to sexual risk behavior ( e.g. Halpern et al., 2009, Howard et al., 2007, Seth et al. 2010)

  4. Access to and use of sexual & reproductive services Individuals’ social and economic characteristics Demographic characteristics Family/household characteristics Community characteristics Reproductive health domains: Consistent Condom Use Gender-based power in sexual relationships Violence: Physical IPV/ Psychological IPV Partner Age Difference as a Predictor of Relationship Power, IPV, and Consistent Condom use  in Adolescent Girls • Relationship characteristics: • Partner Age Difference

  5. Specific Aims • Examine the proposed model: Partner Age Difference as a Predictor of Relationship Power, IPV, and Consistent Condom usein Adolescent Girls • Estimate the direct effects of partner age difference on consistent condom • Analyze the indirect effects of that relationship through proposed mediators, relationship power and IPV

  6. Methods • Design • Cross-sectional, descriptive survey • Setting • School-based health center, mid-size city • Sample • 155 sexually-active, low-income adolescent girls (ages 14-18) in reported “boyfriend” relationship • Procedures • Anonymous, computer assisted self-interview (CASI): Promote Health

  7. Methods: Measures • Partner age difference • Sexual Relationship Power Scale (Pulerwitz et al., 2002) • Relationship Power • Decision-making Dominance • Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus & Douglas, 2004) • Severity of physical and psychological IPV • Consistent condom use

  8. Methods: Analyses • Descriptives • Bivariate correlations • Multiple mediation models to estimate direct and indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008)

  9. Results

  10. Results: Condom Use • Average of 24.5 episodes of vaginal sex, and 7.9 episodes of unprotected sex in 3 months • Only 24% of adolescent girls reported consistent condom use

  11. Results: Relationship Power • An average of 2.9 on relationship power scale (1-4) • Almost 2/3rds fell into high relationship power level • Relationship control inversely correlated with IPV severity • Decision-making Dominance positively correlated with consistent condom use

  12. Results: IPV • Adolescent girls reported high frequency of victimization • Physical: 18% minor only, 18% severe • Psychological: 47% minor only; 35% severe

  13. Gender-based power in sexual relationships Partner age difference Consistent Condom Use Severity of Psychological IPV Results: Direct and Indirect Effects .012 .651 -.429* -.442* .007 -.095 Severity of Physical IPV .000 -.357 *= p< .05

  14. Discussion • Partner age difference was negatively correlated with consistent condom use • Not explained by any of the proposed mediators: relationship power, severity of physical and psychological IPV • Alternative explanations: • Emotional manipulation not identified in relationship power • Clustering of adolescent risk behavior • Complexity of condom use decision-making in relationships

  15. Discussion • Prevalence of physical and psychological IPV severity • Discreet constructions of relationship power • Relationship control: inversely related to IPV • Decision-making dominance: consistent condom use

  16. Limitations • Cross-sectional design • Lack of variability in partner age difference • Lack of context for violence or measure of sexual risk

  17. Implications • Elucidate the degree of partner age difference that predicts low relationship power • Investigate alternative explanations to explain partner age difference’s relationship to condom use • Examine implications of high relationship power among adolescent girls • Incorporate partner age, relationship control, and decision-making dominance in interventions

  18. References DiClemente, R. J., Wingood, G. M., Crosby, R. A., Sionean, C., Cobb, B. K., Harrington, K., . . . Oh, M. K. (2002). Sexual risk behaviors associated with having older sex partners: A study of black adolescent females. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 29(1), 20-24. 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. Howard, D. E., Wang, M. Q., & Yan, F. (2007). Psychosocial factors associated with reports of physical dating violence among U.S. adolescent females. Adolescence, 42(166), 311-324. Pulerwitz, J., Gortmaker, S. L., & DeJong, W. (2000). Measuring sexual relationship power in HIV/STD research. Sex Roles, 42(7), 637-660. Preacher, K. J. & Hayes, A. F., (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40 (3), 879-891.

  19. References (continued) Ryan, S., Franzetta, K., Manlove, J. S., & Schelar, E. (2008). Older sexual partners during adolescence: Links to reproductive health outcomes in young adulthood. Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, 40(1), 17-26. Senn, T. E., & Carey, M. P. (2011). Age of partner at first adolescent intercourse and adult sexual risk behavior among women. Journal of Women's Health, 20(1), 61-66. Seth, P., Raiford, J. L., Robinson, L. S., Wingood, G. M., & Diclemente, R. J. (2010). Intimate partner violence and other partner-related factors: Correlates of sexually transmissible infections and risky sexual behaviours among young adult African American women. Sexual Health, 7(1), 25-30. Straus, M. A., & Douglas, E. M. (2004). A short form of the revised Conflict Tactics Scales, and typologies for severity and mutuality. Violence and Victims, 19(5), 507-520. Teitelman, A. M., Tennille, J., Bohinski, J. M., Jemmott, L. S., & Jemmott, J. B. I. (2011). Unwanted unprotected sex: Condom coercion by male partners and self-silencing of condom negotiation among adolescent girls. Advances in Nursing Science, 34(3).

More Related