English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Identifying which warning signs (WS) of intimate partner violence against girls (IPV) must be included in prevention programs is essential, since there is not an explicit consensus. Our first aim was identifying the most frequent WS included in the reviewed Spanish prevention guides by means of a content analysis performed independently by three judges.  Our second aim was subjecting these to a sample of adolescents (n=60) to know: (1) if they identify them as abusive behaviours; (2) how frequently do they consider they have to occur to be WS, and; (3) how frequently they observe them in their peer environment. Among the 23 identified WS, controlling (n=11) and devaluating behaviours (n=6) are the most frequent in the reviewed literature and the formers´ the most observed in the adolescents’ environment (rank: 52.5% - 90%).  The majority labelled the 23 behaviours as abusive.  Four controlling and 3 devaluating behaviours had to occur very often to be an IPV warning sign. Therefore their tolerance to these WS is high.  The outcomes are valuable for the development of prevention programs and suggest the need of investigating on the explanatory factors of such tolerance.

What are the most representative warning signs of intimate partner violence against adolescent girls?