Demographic data of 1285 women participating in the study revealed the following information. With regard to their living situations, 49.8% of the participants lived in a city (49.8%) and 50.2% lived in a rural area (50.2%). Additionally, 52.5% lived in a single-family setting and 39.0% in an extended-family setting with the number of family members ranging from 2–20 persons (Mean ± SD; 4.1 + 1.9). Their average age range was 45–59 years (48.0%), they were married (61.6%), had graduated from primary school (grade 6) (53.5%), and were housekeepers (23.3%) or employees (22.3). Before the pandemic, 68.8% of participants reported a monthly household income of less than 10,000 Baht (approximately 300 USD). Additionally, 7.9% said that their family incomes were usually inadequate for their daily expenses. During the pandemic, most participants (87.1%) had a monthly household income of less than 10,000 Baht, and 30.6% reported that their family incomes usually were not adequate for their daily expenses. More than half (65.6%) of the participants said that family members smoked, consumed alcohol, or abused substances. (see Table 1)
Table 1. Characteristics of participants (n= 1,285)
Characteristics
|
n (%)
|
Living area
|
|
City
|
640 (49.8)
|
Rural
|
645 (50.2)
|
Age (years)
|
|
15 – 29
|
45 (3.5)
|
30 – 44
|
196 (15.3)
|
45 – 59
|
617 (48.0)
|
60 – 69
|
321 (25.0)
|
70 – 79
|
95 (7.4)
|
80+
|
11 (0.9)
|
Mean±SD
|
54.0 + 11.7
|
Range
|
(15-86)
|
Marital status
|
|
Single
|
118 (9.2)
|
Married
|
818 (63.7)
|
Separated
|
19 (1.5)
|
Divorced/widowed
|
330 (25.7)
|
Education
|
|
No education
|
82 (6.4)
|
Primary
|
687 (53.5)
|
Secondary
|
160 (12.5)
|
Higher education
|
356 (31.3)
|
Occupation
|
|
Laborer
|
287 (22.3)
|
Business owner
|
263 (20.5)
|
Agriculture
|
347 (27.0)
|
Government officer
|
23 (1.8)
|
Company employee
|
20 (1.6)
|
Student
|
7 (0.5)
|
Housewife
|
299 (23.3)
|
No occupation
|
39 (3.0)
|
Income Household (Baht) before Pandemic
|
|
Less than 5,000
|
182 (14.2)
|
5,000-10,000
|
329 (25.6)
|
10,001-20,000
|
373 (29.0)
|
20,001-30,000
|
235 (18.3)
|
30,001-30,000
|
74 (5.8)
|
40,001-50,000
|
35 (2.7)
|
More than 50,000
|
30 (2.3)
|
Don’t know
|
27 (2.1)
|
Adequate household income for expenses before Pandemic
|
|
Adequate and saving
|
237 (18.4)
|
Adequate but no saving
|
648 (50.4)
|
Indigent
|
298 (23.2)
|
Inadequate
|
102 (7.9)
|
Household Income (Baht) during Pandemic
|
|
Less than 5,000
|
423 (32.9)
|
5,000-10,000
|
425 (33.1)
|
10,001-20,000
|
271 (21.1)
|
20,001-30,000
|
76 (5.9)
|
30,001-30,000
|
34 (2.6)
|
40,001-50,000
|
16 (1.2)
|
More than 50,000
|
12 (0.9)
|
Don’t know
|
28 (2.2)
|
Adequate household income for expenses during Pandemic
|
|
Adequate and saving
|
78 (6.1)
|
Adequate but no saving
|
374 (29.1)
|
Indigent
|
440 (34.2)
|
Inadequate
|
393 (30.6)
|
Number of family members
|
|
Mean ± SD
|
4.1 + 1.9
|
Range
|
(2-20)
|
Type of family
|
|
Nuclear
|
674 (52.5)
|
Extended
|
501 (39.0)
|
Single-parent
|
59 (4.6)
|
Skipped-generation
|
51 (4.0)
|
Smoking/Alcohol consumption/ Substance abuse in a family
|
|
Smoking
|
533 (41.5)
|
Alcohol consumption
|
577 (44.9)
|
Substance abuse
|
18 (1.4)
|
Demographic data of 32 staff from agencies working with family violence that participated in the focus group interviews are as follows. Their median age range was 30–50 years (59.3%), they were married (56.3%), had a bachelor's degree level education (50.0%), and worked as a government officers (56.4%). The staff participating described the family violence that occurred among women and children aged under 15 years old, including physical abuse, as well as sexual abuse, resulting in physical and psychological distress from their perspectives. They mentioned the following:
During the COVID-19 pandemic, they (families) faced living outcome constraints, so they argued with each other. Often, this ended up with physical assault happenings. However, they didn’t make it any further or to the police station.
Because the schools weren’t’ operating to teach students on-site while the country was in lockdown, the students attended classes online in their homes instead. As a result, they were sexually abused by parents who were using drugs or that watched dirty media.
Impacts Of Covid-19 Pandemic
The respondents reported that the pandemic had caused them to become unemployed (64.6%) because the business was laid off by their employers or stopped operating their businesses (21.9%). The family had a severe impact (40.6%) and a moderate impact (37.8%). The survey used a rating scale to determine the level of family stress and examine whether families felt they were living under pressure. The families’ responses revealed that they felt moderate to severe levels of stress (Median = 5). In addition, it showed that they solved problems by talking to each other to relieve family stress. (Table 2)
Table 2 Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic (n=1,285)
Impact
|
n (%)
|
Impact on household employment
|
|
- Jobs/working hours losses
|
830 (64.6)
|
- Unemployed (laid-off) / business closed down
|
281 (21.9)
|
Economic impact on household
|
|
- no to mild impact
|
278 (21.6)
|
- moderate impact
|
486 (37.8)
|
- severe impact
|
521 (40.6)
|
Family stress score
|
|
- Median (P25 – P75)
|
5 (3 – 7)
|
The family had discussions/talked about the problem
|
|
- Did not have any discussions or there were discussions but conflicts occurred
|
236 (18.4)
|
- Had discussions/talked to solve problems
|
1049 (81.6)
|
Based on the 32 staff members’ views related to the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, family violence most often happened in families where a family member lacked earning opportunities, which led them to stress out and the use drugs and heavy drinking. As a result, they fought with family members, particularly women. In addition, many children who attended classes online at home fell into a troublesome situation where they were subjected to sexual abuse by their parents. The excerpts from the descriptions related by the participating staff are presented below:
The COVID-19 pandemic affected families that had a low income and members who were employees that lost their incomes, resulting in family violence. If they had debt and insufficient money to meet expenditures, the stress and family problems would pile up.
Before the COVID-19 pandemic, the family members loved each other and didn’t fight with each other; however, they became violent and drank too much alcohol after the pandemic took place.
Child abuse occurred because, first, the children didn’t go to school (because school was closed), and second, their parents used drugs and were unemployed. Then parents got more stressed and, maybe, they watched dirty media. This led to family violence, especially the sexual abuse of both wives and children.
The staff descriptions reflect the impacts of the pandemic, including unemployment and stress that resulted in increased alcohol consumption and or substance use. Additionally, the school lockdown also gave rise to increased incidents of child sexual abuse in households. Then the family violence increased from time to time with physical abuse and sexual abuse. Last, the staff also reported that verbal compromising and legal intervention were used to relieve the consequences of the increases in family violence, however, the management measures implemented to prevent COVID-19 from spreading limited the space available for victims to be sheltered or quarantined (Fig. 1).
Prevalence Of Family Violence
The overall result demonstrates the prevalence of domestic violence was 42.2%, with 542 of 1,285 households have experienced domestic violence during the Pandemic. When considering the type of violence involved, the most common among the 1285 respondents was psychological abuse (41.2%), followed by physical abuse (4.3%) and sexual abuse (2.3%), with several respondents reporting having suffered more than one type of violence (Table 3). The most common types of psychological violence reported, included insulting or humiliating (86%), ignoring (33.8%), and threatening behaviors (15%). Regarding physical violence, the respondents reported being slapped, beaten, kicked, or trampled 60% and pushed, pulled, or thrown 40%. The respondents reported being forced to have sex 76.7% (Table 4). In the second survey, six months after the first survey, the prevalence of domestic violence was 32.7%, with 406 of 1,241 households having experienced domestic violence. Psychological abuse was 32.0%, physical abuse (2.3%), and sexual abuse (1.0%), with respondents reporting having suffered more than one type of violence (Table 3).
Table 3. Prevalence and types of violence (n=1285)
At beginning
|
After 6 month
|
|
n=1241
|
n=1285
|
Experienced violence
|
|
|
Never
|
743 (57.8)
|
835 (67.3)
|
Ever
|
542 (42.2)
|
406 (32.7)
|
Types of violence
|
|
|
Psychological
|
530 (41.2)
|
397 (32.0)
|
Physical
|
55 (4.3)
|
29 (2.3)
|
Sexual
|
30 (2.3)
|
12 (1.0)
|
Table 4. Prevalence of violence divided by type of violence (respondents could select more than 1 answer)
|
n (%)
|
|
Psychological violence
|
530(100%)
|
397 (100%)
|
insulting, belittled, irritable humiliating
|
456 (86.0)
|
334 (87.7)
|
scaring
|
17 (3.2)
|
12 (4.1)
|
Ignore, uninterested cause regret
|
179 (33.8)
|
95 (29.8)
|
threatening behaviors
|
81 (15.3)
|
80 (25.0)
|
Brake a word
|
10 (1.9)
|
13 (4.4)
|
Infidelity
|
16 (3.0)
|
4 (1.4)
|
dominate/control behavior
|
6 (1.1)
|
3 (1.0)
|
Physical violence
|
55 (100%)
|
30 (100%)
|
pushed, pulled, thrown
|
22 (40.0)
|
13 (43.3)
|
slapped, beaten, kicked, trampled
|
33 (60.0)
|
11 (50.0)
|
threatened with or actually used weapons
|
5 (9.1)
|
1 (3.3)
|
Others undisclosed
|
5 (9.1)
|
1 (3.3)
|
Sexual violence
|
30 (100%)
|
12 (100%)
|
Sexual harassment
|
2 (6.7)
|
7 (58.3)
|
Molest/ obscene
|
1 (3.3)
|
1 (8.3)
|
forced to have sex
|
23 (76.7)
|
3 (25.0)
|
Others undisclosed
|
4 (13.3)
|
1 (8.3)
|
Factors Associated With Family Violence
The factors related to domestic violence included income status (p < 0.001), household economic status (p < 0.001), family stress score (p < 0.001), discussion within the family (p < 0.001), smoking or alcohol consumption (p < 0.001), and substance abuse (p = 0.034) (Table 5).
Table 5. Factors associated with family violence
|
Domestic violence
|
|
|
Yes
(n = 542)
|
No
(n = 743)
|
p-value
|
Living area
|
|
|
|
City
|
259 (47.8)
|
381 (51.3)
|
0.216
|
Rural
|
283 (52.2)
|
362 (48.7)
|
|
Income status during Pandemic
|
|
|
|
Adequate and saving
|
24 (4.4)
|
54 (7.3)
|
0.001
|
Adequate but no saving
|
140 (25.8)
|
234 (31.5)
|
|
Indigent
|
182 (33.6)
|
258 (34.7)
|
|
Inadequate
|
196 (36.2)
|
197 (26.5)
|
|
Type of family
|
|
|
|
Nuclear
|
282 (52.0)
|
392 (52.8)
|
0.272
|
Extended
|
204 (37.6)
|
297 (40.0)
|
|
Single-parent
|
30 (5.5)
|
29 (3.9)
|
|
Skipped-generation
|
26 (4.8)
|
25 (3.4)
|
|
Economic impact on household
|
|
|
|
No to mild impact
|
96 (17.7)
|
182 (24.5)
|
0.003
|
Moderate impact
|
202 (37.3)
|
284 (38.2)
|
|
Severe impact
|
244 (45.0)
|
277 (37.3)
|
|
Family stress score
|
|
|
|
Median (P25 – P75)
|
6 (3–8)
|
5 (2–7)
|
< 0.001
|
The family had discussions/talked about their problems
|
|
|
|
No
|
127 (23.4)
|
109 (14.7)
|
< 0.001
|
Yes
|
415 (76.6)
|
634 (85.3)
|
|
Smoking/alcohol consumption in the family
|
|
|
|
None
|
181 (33.4)
|
349 (47.0)
|
< 0.001
|
Smoking
|
77 (14.2)
|
101 (13.6)
|
|
Alcohol consumption
|
115 (21.2)
|
107 (14.4)
|
|
Smoking & alcohol consumption
|
169 (31.2)
|
186 (25.0)
|
|
Substance abuse in the family (amphetamine, Kratom, inhalants, etcetera)
|
|
|
|
No
|
530 (97.8)
|
737 (99.2)
|
0.034
|
Yes
|
12 (2.2)
|
6 (0.8)
|
|
Meanwhile, the staff members’ views added additional information and provided a deeper understanding of why family violence occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, as illustrated in the following description.
The causes of family violence before and during the COVID-19 pandemic are not different. This violence takes place when a family member drinks, uses drugs or even has an affair. Not having any money, or having insufficient money, is the main family problem that leads to physical abuse.