家庭暴力的家庭危险因素分析

An analysis of risk factors in household with a history of domestic violence

目的 分析家庭暴力的家庭危险因素。方法 采取多级分层随机抽样方法和病例对照研究方法，用自编暴力家庭问卷，对310户暴力家庭，以及按照家庭结构配对选取的310户无暴力家庭的户主进行入户访谈。结果 暴力家庭的年人均收入[（4754±5510）元]略低于非暴力家庭[（5413±4893）元]，但差异无显著性（P〉0．05），人均居住面积[（20±11）m^2]小于非暴力家庭[（22±13）m^2]，差异具有显著性（P〈0．05）；暴力家庭中家庭成员对经济与居住状况的主观评价低者（分别为27．5％和33．3％）均多于非暴力家庭（分别为15．5％和23．1％），差异均具有非常显著性（P〈0．01）。暴力家庭的家长制（25．0％）与自由制（19．6％）明显多于非暴力家庭（6．8％和12．3％，），而民主制明显少于非暴力家庭（44．2％vs80．6％），差异均具有非常显著性（P〈0．01）。暴力家庭中待业下岗、酗酒、赌博、精神病和病残成员（分别为21．3％，3．1％，5．6％，4．5％，6．5％）均多于非暴力家庭（分别为11．6％，0，0．3％，1．0％，2．3％），差异均具有非常显著性（P〈0．01），成员中持可使用暴力解决家庭问题的态度者（72．4％）明显多于非暴力家庭（11．9％），差异具有非常显著性（P〈0．01）。家庭中有待业下岗和赌博成员、家庭家长制与自由制、以及家庭成员中有持家庭暴力肯定态度者对家庭是否产生暴力的预测具有非常显著性意义（P〈0．01）。结论预测家庭暴力需评估家庭，家庭中有待业下岗和赌博成员、家长制和自由制以及家庭成员中有对家庭暴力持肯定态度者为暴力家庭的预测因子。

Objective To analyze the risk factors in household with a history of domestic violence （ DV-household）. Methods Using a multi-stage sampling strategy, 310 DV-households were randomly selected, and compared to control group of 310 non-DV-households matched for family structure. A self-designed DV-household questionnaire was administered to the head of DV and non-DV-households to case-control study. Results While the differences were not significant between DV-household and non-DV-household with regard to actual annual income （ P 〉 0.05 ）, self-estimated annual income and self-estimated living condition were worse reported by DV- household members （27.5% and 33.3%, respectively） were significantly more than those by non-DV-household （15.5% and 23. 1%, respectively） （ P 〈 0. 01 ）. The family rules of parental and freedom were significantly higher, and rule of democracy was significantly lower reported by DV-household than those reported by non-DV- household（25.0% vs 6.8%, 19.6% vs 12.3%, 44.2% vs 80.6%, P〈0.01）. There were more family members with unemployment, alcohol abuse, gambling, psychosis and disease or disability, with more acceptances towards DV in DV-household than those in non-DV-household（21.3% vsll. 6%, 3.1% vs 0, 5.6% vs 0.3%, 4.5% vsl.0%, 6.5% vs2.3%, 72.4% vs 11.9% ,allP〈0.01）. Conclusions The findings suggest that evaluating households was needed on predicting DV. Family factors such as members with unemployment and gambling, with acceptance towards DV, and family rules of parental and freedom were strong predictive factors for DV.