The Risk Environment for Perpetration of Partner Violence Among Male Migrant Market Workers in Central Asia

Background: Male perpetration of intimate partner violence (IPV) against women in migrant communities has emerged as a serious public health and social issue with myriad adverse health consequences in Central Asia and globally. To date, however, research on multi-level risk factors associated with male perpetration of IPV among migrants remains scant.  This study aims to: (1) estimate and compare prevalence of perpetration of IPV among a sample of male market workers in Kazakhstan that includes external migrants, internal migrants, and non-migrants and (2) examine whether risk environment theory driven factors are associated with perpetration of IPV in the past 6 months among these three groups after adjusting for potentially confounding socio-demographic and psychosocial factors.

Methods: We recruited and enrolled a sample of 1,342 male market workers from the largest market in Central Asia in Almaty, Kazakhstan using respondent-driven sampling (RDS). This sample included 562 (42%) non-migrants defined as Kazakhstan citizens who reside within a two-hour commuting distance of Almaty, 502 (37%) external migrants, who were citizens of other Central Asian countries of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, and 278 (21%) internal migrants from other areas of Kazakhstan. We conducted multivariate logistic regressions to estimate the effects of physical, economic and political risk environment factors on IPV perpetration measured using the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. We included interaction terms of risk environment factors and migrant status in the regression models.

Results: The mean age was 27.0 years (SD=5.3). Of the total sample, 562 (42%) identified as non-migrants, 502 (37%) as external migrants, and 278 (21%) as internal migrants. A total of 170 participants (12.7%) reported ever perpetrating any physical or sexual IPV and 6.7% indicated they perpetrated any physical or sexual IPV in the past 6 months. No significant differences were found in prevalence of different types of male perpetration of IPV in the prior 6 months among non-migrants, internal migrants and external migrants. However, findings suggest that physical, economic, and political risk environment factors are differentially associated with perpetration of IPV among internal migrants, external migrants and non-migrants. Multiple logistic regression results suggest that the risk environment factors of poor living conditions, exposure to political violence, and deportation experiences are associated with IPV perpetration among external and internal migrants, but not among non-migrants. Food insecurity is associated with IPV perpetration among external migrants and non-migrants, but not among internal migrants.  Homelessness and arrests by police are associated with IPV perpetration among internal migrants, but not among external migrants or non-migrants.

Conclusions and Implications: The differential associations found between risk environment characteristics and IPV perpetration among non-migrants, external and internal migrants underscore the need to consider the unique combination of physical, economic, and political risk environment factors that are linked to male perpetration of IPV by migration status. These findings highlight the need for novel community and structural interventions that address modifiable migration risk environment factors that contribute to male perpetration of IPV among internal and external migrant market workers in Central Asia.