Identifying sociodemographic differences in Intimate Partner Violence among immigrant and native women in Spain: a cross-sectional study

Objectives: To analyze whether sociodemographics and social support have a different or similar effect on the likelihood of Intimate Partner Violence in immigrants and natives, and to estimate prevalences and associations between different types of IPV depending on women's birthplace. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 10,048 women (18–70 years) attending primary healthcare in Spain (2006–2007). Outcome: Current Intimate Partner Violence (psychological, physical and both). Sociodemographics and social support were considered first as explicative and later as control variables. Results: Similar Intimate Partner Violence sociodemographic and social support factors were observed among immigrants and natives. However, these associations were stronger among immigrants, except in the case of poor social support (adjusted odds ratio natives 4.36 and adjusted odds ratio immigrants 4.09). When these two groups were compared, immigrants showed a higher likelihood of IPV than natives (adjusted odds ratios 1.58). Conclusion: Immigrant women are in a disadvantaged Intimate Partner Violence situation. It is necessary that interventions take these inequalities into account.

Do socioeconomic inequalities in mortality vary between different Spanish cities? a pooled cross-sectional analysis

Background: The relationship between deprivation and mortality in urban settings is well established. This relationship has been found for several causes of death in Spanish cities in independent analyses (the MEDEA project). However, no joint analysis which pools the strength of this relationship across several cities has ever been undertaken. Such an analysis would determine, if appropriate, a joint relationship by linking the associations found. Methods: A pooled cross-sectional analysis of the data from the MEDEA project has been carried out for each of the causes of death studied. Specifically, a meta-analysis has been carried out to pool the relative risks in eleven Spanish cities. Different deprivation-mortality relationships across the cities are considered in the analysis (fixed and random effects models). The size of the cities is also considered as a possible factor explaining differences between cities. Results: Twenty studies have been carried out for different combinations of sex and causes of death. For nine of them (men: prostate cancer, diabetes, mental illnesses, Alzheimer’s disease, cerebrovascular disease; women: diabetes, mental illnesses, respiratory diseases, cirrhosis) no differences were found between cities in the effect of deprivation on mortality; in four cases (men: respiratory diseases, all causes of mortality; women: breast cancer, Alzheimer’s disease) differences not associated with the size of the city have been determined; in two cases (men: cirrhosis; women: lung cancer) differences strictly linked to the size of the city have been determined, and in five cases (men: lung cancer, ischaemic heart disease; women: ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, all causes of mortality) both kinds of differences have been found. Except for lung cancer in women, every significant relationship between deprivation and mortality goes in the same direction: deprivation increases mortality. Variability in the relative risks across cities was found for general mortality for both sexes. Conclusions: This study provides a general overview of the relationship between deprivation and mortality for a sample of large Spanish cities combined. This joint study allows the exploration of and, if appropriate, the quantification of the variability in that relationship for the set of cities considered.