Introduction

Research has documented higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) among minority populations, including racial and ethnic minorities [1–3] and sexual minorities (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer-identified individuals) [3–6]. A large national study of cohabitating couples reported that incidences of IPV among Black and Hispanic couples were two times higher than White couples but did not investigate the role of sexual identity or type of IPV experienced [2]. Similarly, a critical review of IPV among sexual minority populations found that IPV rates were equal to or greater than those of heterosexual persons [4]. Minority stress theory has been posited as model for why increased health disparities, including elevated rates of IPV, are faced by minoritized populations [7–11]. Indeed, recent work has linked elevated rates of IPV among Latino sexual minority men to their experiences of race-based discrimination [12]. Given the additional minority stressors that may be experienced by individuals and groups who hold multiply minoritized identities, targeted effort must be dedicated to understanding the unique health and social needs of those most impacted [13].

Additionally, literature on IPV victimization and perpetration has shown significant associations with alcohol and other substance use [14]. For example, a meta-analytic review including 258 studies reported that alcohol and drug use were significantly associated with IPV (perpetration and victimization) with mean effect-size ranging from r = 0.18 to 0.23 [15]. This review indicated a significantly stronger correlation between drug use and victimization, compared to alcohol use and victimization. Another recent systematic review found mixed results across studies for the association between alcohol use and IPV perpetration among Black or African American men [16]. Overall, however, few studies investigate relations between IPV victimization and perpetration and reports of substance use among sexual minority men of color (e.g., Black, Latino) and there are several critical knowledge gaps.

First, empirical research has rarely documented types of IPV victimization and perpetration experiences (i.e., physical/sexual, emotional, controlling, and monitoring types of violence) among young Black and Latino sexual minority men. Among the few studies that have conducted such investigations, research relied on small samples [17], did not break down particular types of IPV [17], and considered victimization but not perpetration [3, 18, 19]. Furthermore, insufficient attention has been paid to young adulthood (under age 25) [8], a critical period when IPV experiences are most likely to onset [20].

Second, only limited research has examined how use of different substances (e.g., tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, poppers) may be associated with different types of IPV victimization and perpetration experiences among sexual minority men of color. In a study with Black same-sex couples, Wu et al. found that heavy drinking was significantly associated with IPV perpetration and victimization (lifetime and past 30 days) whereas crack-cocaine use was significantly associated with lifetime victimization and perpetration with their current partner [17]. Duncan et al. found a positive association between sexual victimization and aggregated substance use, but particular substances used were not reported [18].

Methods

Results

Descriptive analyses (Table 1) indicated that 22% (n = 92) of participants reported any IPV victimization and 14% (n = 59) reported any IPV perpetration in the previous six months. Physical/sexual IPV victimization (n = 51; 12% of sample, 55% of victimized) was the most common type of victimization reported, followed by emotional IPV (n = 46; 11%, 50%), monitoring IPV (n = 38; 9%, 41%), and controlling IPV (n = 23; 6%, 25%). In contrast, monitoring IPV perpetration (n = 38; 9% of sample, 64% of perpetrators) was the most common type of perpetration reported, followed by emotional IPV (n = 26; 6%, 44%), physical/sexual IPV (n = 25; 6%, 42%), and controlling IPV (n = 7; 2%, 12%).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, IPV exposure, and substance use among the Healthy Young Men’s Cohort, wave 5.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309958.t001

Multivariable logistic regression analyses demonstrated a significant positive association between any IPV victimization and tobacco use (aOR 1.92, 95% CI: 1.10–3.36) after controlling for significant demographic covariates. Considering the specific types of IPV victimization, physical/sexual IPV was positively associated with cocaine use (aOR 2.87, 95% CI: 1.25–6.58) and poppers use (aOR 2.99, 95% CI: 1.35–6.60) and controlling IPV was significantly positively associated with tobacco use (aOR 3.28, 95% CI: 1.07–10.02). In comparison, monitoring IPV victimization was negatively associated with binge drinking alcohol (aOR 0.20, 95% CI: 0.06–0.64) and poppers use (aOR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.05–0.66). There were no significant associations for emotional IPV victimization.

In addition, multivariable logistic regression analyses (Table 2) demonstrated a significant positive association between any IPV perpetration and binge drinking alcohol (aOR 2.19, 95% CI: 1.13–4.24) after controlling for significant demographic covariates. Considering the specific types of IPV perpetration, binge drinking alcohol was positively associated with monitoring IPV (aOR 2.75, 95% CI: 1.07–7.03) and emotional IPV (aOR 4.27, 95% CI: 1.46–12.51). In comparison, there were no significant associations for physical/sexual, or controlling.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 2. Odds of substance use by IPV exposure.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309958.t002

Discussion

These findings add to the literature on types of IPV victimization and perpetration among young Black and Latino sexual minority men. Notably, although physical/sexual IPV was the most common among those reporting victimization, monitoring IPV was the most common among those reporting perpetration. Consistent with our hypotheses about general associations between IPV and substance use, any IPV victimization was associated with increased likelihood of tobacco use and any IPV perpetration was associated with increased likelihood of binge drinking. However, our results also suggested nuanced associations between types of victimization and perpetration and types of substances. Physical/sexual IPV victimization was linked to stimulating, social substances (poppers, cocaine), which are also linked to increased risky sexual behaviors [27, 28]. Although we were unable to examine reasons and processes underlying participants’ use of stimulating, social drugs, this finding could stem from use to cope with IPV experiences or use under coercion manifesting from IPV victimization. In contrast, increased monitoring IPV victimization was linked to lower likelihoods of cannabis and poppers use, substance that are also used socially. This finding could stem from social restriction as an extension of behavior-monitoring mechanisms and/or alienation of from social circles. Further, emotional IPV perpetration was linked to binge drinking. This is consistent with meta-analytic results on risk factors for IPV in same-sex relationships, where alcohol misuse was reported as a significant risk for IPV perpetration [29]. Critically, despite elevated rates of self-reported IPV victimization and perpetration over recent years, interventions addressing IPV among sexual minority populations are sorely lacking.

Results presented here must be considered alongside study limitations. Data analyzed stem from a single study wave thus temporality of IPV and substance use cannot be determined. As additional IPV data are collected in HYMS, future work will be better positioned to unpack temporality. Notably, the reliability of the emotional IPV victimization subscale was in an unacceptable range (< .60) which may have led to the lack of findings in that area. Additionally, caution should be taken when interpreting the results of the models of cannabis and cocaine use, as the overall models in those cases were not statistically significant. The HYMS questionnaire did not assess additional information about specific IPV experiences (e.g., context). Behaviors captured as violence may have been consensual in some instances. Similarly, it is possible that a partner was monitoring communications at the behest of the other. Interestingly, fewer participants reported IPV perpetration than victimization, which could be related to social desirability bias. Questions about IPV and substance use were self-reported using a computer-based survey, not through interviewer led assessment, however, so this bias should be minimized. Future studies interested in IPV should collect contextual information and follow up to ensure experiences are captured and interpreted correctly. While assigned male sex at birth was an inclusion criterion for this study, gender was not. Our findings should be interpreted with the understanding that while 95% of the sample identified their gender as male in wave 5, the remaining 5% did not. Additionally, gender was fluid throughout the study for some participants. Finally, these results may not be generalizable outside of young sexual minority people of color assigned male sex at birth in Los Angeles.

These findings expand on existing literature linking IPV and substance use generally. Understanding specificity of IPV experiences and their relations to substance use provides nuanced information for interventions. Namely, programs and services targeting IPV victims or perpetrators and/or those who misuse substances will be exponentially more successful if they address the specific needs of those they engage. To adapt and update existing interventions developed for other populations (e.g., heterosexual women) we must understand the unique experiences of young sexual minority people of color assigned male sex at birth. Ultimately, IPV and substance misuse are preventable, but equity will remain elusive until impacted communities are understood and are engaged in developing and testing the tools meant to improve their lives.

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many staff members who contributed to collection, management, analysis, and review of these data: James Aboagye, Alex Aldana, Stacy Alford, Ali Johnson, Katrina Kubicek, Nicole Pereira, Aracely Rodriguez, Lindsay Slay, and Su Wu. The authors would also like to acknowledge the insightful and practical commentary of the members of the Community Advisory Board ‐ Daniel Nguyen: Asian Pacific AIDS Intervention Team; Ivan Daniels III: Los Angeles Black Pride; Steven Campa: Los Angeles LGBT Center; Davon Crenshaw: AIDS Project Los Angeles; Andre Molette: Essential Access Health; Miguel Martinez, Joaquin Gutierrez, and Jesse Medina: Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Greg Wilson: Reach LA; and The LGBTQ Center Long Beach.