TY - JOUR
T1 - Lifetime Economic Burden of Intimate Partner Violence Among U.S. Adults
AU - Peterson, Cora
AU - Kearns, Megan C.
AU - McIntosh, Wendy Li Kam Wa
AU - Estefan, Lianne Fuino
AU - Nicolaidis, Christina
AU - McCollister, Kathryn E.
AU - Gordon, Amy
AU - Florence, Curtis
N1 - Funding Information:
Cristina Nicolaidis, Kathryn McCollister, and Amy Gordon were supported to conduct a literature review for this study through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention contract 200-2015-F-88070 to Quality Resource Systems Inc.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018
PY - 2018/10
Y1 - 2018/10
N2 - Introduction: This study estimated the U.S. lifetime per-victim cost and economic burden of intimate partner violence. Methods: Data from previous studies were combined with 2012 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data in a mathematical model. Intimate partner violence was defined as contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking victimization with related impact (e.g., missed work days). Costs included attributable impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs from the societal perspective. Mean age at first victimization was assessed as 25 years. Future costs were discounted by 3%. The main outcome measures were the mean per-victim (female and male) and total population (or economic burden) lifetime cost of intimate partner violence. Secondary outcome measures were marginal outcome probabilities among victims (e.g., anxiety disorder) and associated costs. Analysis was conducted in 2017. Results: The estimated intimate partner violence lifetime cost was $103,767 per female victim and $23,414 per male victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.6 trillion (2014 US$) over victims’ lifetimes, based on 43 million U.S. adults with victimization history. This estimate included $2.1 trillion (59% of total) in medical costs, $1.3 trillion (37%) in lost productivity among victims and perpetrators, $73 billion (2%) in criminal justice activities, and $62 billion (2%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1.3 trillion (37%) of the lifetime economic burden. Conclusions: Preventing intimate partner violence is possible and could avoid substantial costs. These findings can inform the potential benefit of prioritizing prevention, as well as evaluation of implemented prevention strategies.
AB - Introduction: This study estimated the U.S. lifetime per-victim cost and economic burden of intimate partner violence. Methods: Data from previous studies were combined with 2012 U.S. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey data in a mathematical model. Intimate partner violence was defined as contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking victimization with related impact (e.g., missed work days). Costs included attributable impaired health, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs from the societal perspective. Mean age at first victimization was assessed as 25 years. Future costs were discounted by 3%. The main outcome measures were the mean per-victim (female and male) and total population (or economic burden) lifetime cost of intimate partner violence. Secondary outcome measures were marginal outcome probabilities among victims (e.g., anxiety disorder) and associated costs. Analysis was conducted in 2017. Results: The estimated intimate partner violence lifetime cost was $103,767 per female victim and $23,414 per male victim, or a population economic burden of nearly $3.6 trillion (2014 US$) over victims’ lifetimes, based on 43 million U.S. adults with victimization history. This estimate included $2.1 trillion (59% of total) in medical costs, $1.3 trillion (37%) in lost productivity among victims and perpetrators, $73 billion (2%) in criminal justice activities, and $62 billion (2%) in other costs, including victim property loss or damage. Government sources pay an estimated $1.3 trillion (37%) of the lifetime economic burden. Conclusions: Preventing intimate partner violence is possible and could avoid substantial costs. These findings can inform the potential benefit of prioritizing prevention, as well as evaluation of implemented prevention strategies.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85053897073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85053897073&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.049
DO - 10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.049
M3 - Article
C2 - 30166082
AN - SCOPUS:85053897073
VL - 55
SP - 433
EP - 444
JO - American Journal of Preventive Medicine
JF - American Journal of Preventive Medicine
SN - 0749-3797
IS - 4
ER -