Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Violence Affects Physical and Mental Health Differently: The General Population Based Tromsø Study

  • Oddgeir Friborg ,

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

  • Nina Emaus,

    Affiliation Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

  • Jan H. Rosenvinge,

    Affiliation Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

  • Unni Bilden,

    Affiliation Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

  • Jan Abel Olsen,

    Affiliation Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

  • Gunn Pettersen

    Affiliation Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway

Violence Affects Physical and Mental Health Differently: The General Population Based Tromsø Study

  • Oddgeir Friborg, 
  • Nina Emaus, 
  • Jan H. Rosenvinge, 
  • Unni Bilden, 
  • Jan Abel Olsen, 
  • Gunn Pettersen


10 Jan 2019: Friborg O, Emaus N, Rosenvinge JH, Bilden U, Olsen JA, et al. (2019) Correction: Violence Affects Physical and Mental Health Differently: The General Population Based Tromsø Study. PLOS ONE 14(1): e0210822. View correction


This general population-based study examined associations between violence and mental health, musculoskeletal pain, and early disability pension. The prevalence and consequences of good vs. poor adjustment (resilience vs. vulnerability) following encounters with violence were also examined. Data were based on the sixth wave of the “Tromsø Study” (N = 12,981; 65.7% response rate, 53.4% women, M-age = 57.5 years, SD-age = 12.7 years). Self-reported data on psychological (threats) and physical violence (beaten/kicked), mental health (anxiety/depression), musculoskeletal pain (MSP), and granting of disability pension (DP) were collected. Men suffered more violent events during childhood than women did, and vice versa during adulthood. Psychological violence implied poorer mental health and slightly more MSP than physical violence. The risk of MSP was highest for violence occurring during childhood in women and during the last year for men. A dose-response relationship between an increasing number of violent encounters and poorer health was observed. About 58% of individuals reported no negative impact of violence (hence, resilience group), whereas 42% considered themselves as more vulnerable following encounters with violence. Regression analyses indicated comparable mental health but slightly more MSP in the resilience group compared to the unexposed group, whereas the vulnerable group had significantly worse health overall and a higher risk of early granting of DP. Resilience is not an all-or-nothing matter, as physical ailments may characterize individuals adapting well following encounters with violence.


The human and societal tolls of violence are substantial. In 2002, the World Health Organization published the first report on violence and health [1], also highlighting the considerable benefits for the public health sector in taking an active role in prevention. Universal prevention is generally the best strategy, that is, finding sociopolitical interventions that target the roots or causes of violence in order to prevent its occurrence. Nonetheless, the role of public health services is of utmost importance in reducing the immediate or long-term health consequences among people exposed to violence.

Violence comes in many forms, such as self-directed (e.g., self-harm or suicidal attempts), interpersonal (e.g., family/intimate partner violence), or collective (e.g., politically or economically motivated). More distressing, however, is violence that is inflicted in close relationships and involves more force or is endured for a longer time [2]. Violent events that are interpersonal and intentional (e.g., torture, rape, abuse, or bullying) are more difficult for people to cope with compared to non-intentional events, such as serious accidents [3]. Violent events may involve either threats or actual violence, or a combination of both. Although physical injuries may ensue and add to the psychological burden after physical violence, threats of violence may represent a larger psychological burden than actual violence, as posed threats usually are not limited in time. Although physical violence may also involve threats, they usually are constricted in time and by the context. Studies on post-traumatic stress disorders support this distinction, as threat appraisals seem to mediate the degree of adjustment problems following trauma exposure [4, 5]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no general population-based studies have examined this distinction. In the present population-based study, two questions asking about exposure to violence (threats vs. actual violence) were included, thus allowing an analysis of their respective contribution to health problems.

Exposure to violence carries numerous potential consequences spanning three overarching domains: increased mortality, morbidity, and disability [1, 68]. Increased psychological morbidity, most notably as depression, suicidality, substance abuse or post-traumatic stress disorders is common subsequent to experiencing interpersonal violence [911]. Chronic functional problems following such events, such as higher risk of disability pension [8] are also elevated. A more general yet overlapping term in the literature that encompass a wider range of adverse life events, including violence, trauma, losses, bereavement, or illnesses, are negative life events (NLEs). NLEs seem to be sturdy predictors for later health problems, although the relationship generally is weaker than for violence [9]. NLEs have been independently associated with recurrent pain problems [12], acute infections [13], myocardial infarction [14], cardiovascular diseases [15], colorectal cancer [16], or skin diseases [17]. Comparably, NLEs increase the risk for mental health problems [13] as well as major depression [18] and schizophrenia [19]. NLEs, in particular violence, may also disrupt concentration and memory and indirectly impair academic performance [20, 21] contributing to early disability pension [22].

Experiencing violence may affect women and men differently, as reported in a large Swedish population study (N~6,100), which showed that women had doubled the odds of poorer psychological health than men [23]. A meta-analysis on domestic violence confirmed that subsequent internalizing symptoms (e.g., depression) are more common among girls than boys [24]. Comparable gender differences have been reported in other studies [25], which also reported that men may suffer from somatic health problems more often than women do.

1.1 Resilience to NLEs

A popular myth about exposure to violence or trauma is that subsequent health problems will follow. The extensive search for risk factors is a testimony of this orientation also among researchers. However, the majority of victims seem to cope or function relatively well in the aftermath of trauma [26, 27]. This outcome has been termed resilience [2830] and has been defined as a relatively good outcome (no pathology) or a relatively normal functioning despite exposure to significant stressors, violence, or trauma. In the present population-based study, a question about the degree of negative impact subsequent to exposure to violent events was included, hence making an analysis of resilience possible, as the large sample size compensated for the reduced accuracy and statistical power of using single questions. As resilience may be defined as “no pathology” or relatively “normal functioning”, we used responses to the impact question to create subgroups describing unexposed subjects (no violent exposure), resilient (exposed but good adjustment), and vulnerable (exposed but poor adjustment) subjects.

The adaptation process may, however come at a price, as the higher allostatic load caused by the “wear and tear” of NLEs [31] may cause neuroendocrine and immunological changes that over time may lead to somatic health complaints or diseases [32]. Subjects characterized as resilient are expected to experience less “wear and tear” as they generally cope better with NLEs than vulnerable subjects. However, individuals with a history of childhood maltreatment, but who are considered resilient (good mental health), seem to show more blunted adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol responses [33] and larger immunological responses [34] to later minor stressors than unexposed healthy individuals do. Subjects that cope poorly show stronger corticosteroid and inappropriate inflammatory responses, thus experiencing even more “wear and tear” [35]. However, the tendency for a stronger neuroendocrine and immunological response among those considered resilient may therefore enhance the vulnerability for somatic health problems over time, which are quantifiable as symptoms of musculoskeletal pain.

1.2 Aims of the study

The large sample size in the “Tromsø study” (N = 12,981) makes it possible to examine whether subjects classified as resilient show different profiles with regard to job functioning and, mental and musculoskeletal health complaints compared to unexposed subjects. Moreover, by using general population-based data, gender differences similar to those reported by Schlack and Petermann (25) could be examined.

We pose several hypotheses: 1) psychological violence is associated with worse ratings of mental and physical health as well as job functioning, 2) subjects considered as resilient are expected to show equally good mental health and job functioning as unexposed subjects but more health complaints in terms of musculoskeletal pain due to the increased allostatic load caused by psychological violence in particular, and 3) subjects more vulnerable to exposure to violence are expected to demonstrate the poorest health and job functioning.

In addition, a range of demographic data as well as alcohol use are associated with exposure to violence [36], thus these covariates were included in the statistical analyses to adjust for their effects. Violence does not happen entirely at random, rather, those who are younger, unmarried, with lower education and income, in unskilled jobs or consuming more alcohol are more frequently perpetrated [1, 36]. The prevalence of health problems, similarly to those measured in the present study, is also higher in these subgroups [37, 38], which strengthens the argument for adjusting for these variables. Moreover, as obesity [39] and lack of physical activity [40] are well-known risk factors for musculoskeletal health problems, information about body composition (body mass index, BMI) and self-reported physical activity were also included.

Materials and Methods

The “Tromsø study” is a longitudinal general population-based multi-purpose study focusing on lifestyle-related diseases [41]. The study consisted of six waves starting in 1974 and was repeated last time in 2007/08 [42]. All surveys included questionnaires and various clinical measurements. The present study is based on data collected in the 2007/08 wave, which for the first time included questions on violence exposure. Altogether 19,762 subjects were invited and 12,984 (65.7%) participated, 6,054 men (62.9%) and 6,930 women (68.4%). Mean age was 57.5 years (SD = 12.7).

The Regional Committee of Medical and Health Research Ethics and the Norwegian Data Inspectorate approved the study. Each participant gave written informed consent prior to inclusion.

2.1 Questionnaire

Along with the invitation letter, subjects received the first questionnaire (Q1), which they completed at home and brought to the study site. Here, a research technician checked it for inconsistencies and incomplete data. The participants were then given a second questionnaire (Q2), which they could fill in at the site or at home. The Q2 asked for two kinds of experiences with violence: i) Have you experienced being tormented or threatened with violence over a long period of time? and ii) Have you been beaten, kicked or been victim of other types of violence over a long period of time? The subjects could tick any of the following answers: 0-No; 1-Yes, experienced as child; 2-Yes, experienced as adult; 3-Yes, experienced last year. Following these questions, the subjects reported the negative impact of these events on their life (1-not affected, 2-affected to some extent, or 3-affected to a large extent). This question was used to classify the subjects’ response as indicating vulnerability or resilience following exposure to these events.

In addition, the Q2 included the following question about musculoskeletal complaints: Have you suffered from pain and/or stiffness in muscles and joints lasting for at least 3 months during the last year? The subjects were given three response alternatives: 0-no complaints, 1-little complaints, and 2-severe complaints across six sites (pain in neck, arms, hip, upper back, lumbar, or other sites). Symptoms of mental health problems were assessed in the Q1 using a short version of the Hopkin’s Symptom Check List (HSCL, 90 items), that is, the HSCL-10, which is a widely used, self-administered instrument measuring psychological distress in population surveys. Reponses are recorded on a 4-point scale (1-not at all, 4-very much), and the average score is calculated. Higher scores indicate more symptoms, and scores above 1.75 indicate significant depression requiring treatment [43].

The following covariates from Q1 and Q2 were included: age, BMI (weight kg/height m2), marital status (single, married/cohabitating, widow(er), or divorced), educational status (primary, high school, or university), occupation (unemployed, retired, part-time, or full-time), household income (equivalent in USD, classified as low <49,425, medium 49,425–90,311, or high > 90,311; according to official categories of Statistics Norway in 2007), physical activity (low, moderate, or high), smoking status (never, former, or present smoker), and frequency (never/rarely, weekly or more) and amount (1–2, 3–6, or 7+ weekly units) of alcohol use.

2.2 Statistics

Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 21. Univariate gender differences were examined with independent t-tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for dichotomous variables. Hierarchical linear regression analyses were used to examine the association between violence and mental distress scores (HSCL-10). Childhood violence was entered first, adulthood violence second, and last year violence third, thus separating their explanatory contributions. The covariates were entered in the last step to provide crude and adjusted coefficients for the violence variables. The following variables were categorical and hence dummy coded with zero as the reference category: marital status (0-married, 1-single, 2-widow(er) and 3-divorced), level of education (0-college/university, 1-upper secondary school and 3-primary school), occupation (0-full time, 1-part time, 2-retired and 3-unemployed), household income (0-high, 1-medium and 2-high), degree of exercise (0-high, 1-medium and 2-low), and units of alcohol (0-low, 1-medium and 2-high). All other variables were either continuously or binary coded (0/1). The HSCL-10 variable was log-transformed as it was positively skewed (Z) and lepto-kurtotic, which is normal for low prevalent phenomena. A similar regression approach was used for the resilience classification variable, which was entered first and then adjusted by number of violent events and covariates in separate steps. The six musculoskeletal pain variables were summed and treated as a count variable (range 0–6, M = 1.44, SD = 1.50). The mean and SD values were almost similar, and thus a Poisson regression analysis is recommended [44]. The log link function and robust standard errors were used to produce error bands for the Wald statistics. All analyses were stratified by gender. The alpha-level was set to .05. A logistic regression analysis was set up similarly for the granting of disability pension (0-no/1-yes).


Baseline descriptive characteristics of the study cohort are presented in Table 1, which also gives test statistics for gender differences.

The degree of exposure to violence is presented in Table 2 for women and men separately. During childhood, psychological violence (threatened/feeling tormented) was more common than actual violence. Men reported threats and actual violence significantly more often than women. During adulthood, these gender differences went in the opposite direction, with women reporting significantly more experiences with threats and actual violence than men. The prevalence of violence during the last year was low and comparable between women and men.

Table 2. Exposure to Violence During Childhood, Adulthood and Last Year.

3.1 Relationships between violence, mental health, and musculoskeletal pain

The crude and adjusted coefficients were quite comparable (Table 3). The magnitude of the coefficients (or effect sizes) was small. Psychological violence (threatened/tormented) was associated with worse mental health (HSCL-10) than actual violence, which was a consistent finding independent of gender and life epoch (childhood/adulthood). This picture was to some extent comparable for symptoms of musculoskeletal pain (MSP), except psychological and actual violence were similarly associated with MSP for childhood events in men and adulthood events in women. Regarding recent violent events, men exposed to threats had more MSP than men exposed to actual violence.

Table 3. Regression Analyses with Mental Distress (HSCL-10) and Number of Severe Musculoskeletal Pain Sites (MSP) as Outcome.

Adjusted analysis: A range of covariates were included (see note of Table 3). With regard to mental health (HSCL-10), BMI, occupation status and age contributed most. BMI showed a curvilinear relationship (♀β = -.250** and β2 = .255**; ♂β = -.254* and β2 = .268*) indicating poorer mental health for lower and higher BMIs. Being retired (♀β = .152***, ♂β = .1117***), older (♀β = -.109***, ♂β = -.145***), low socio-economic status (♀β = .097***, ♂β = .133***) and low physical activity (♀β = .095***, ♂β = .053**) were associated with poorer mental health.

With regard to musculoskeletal pain (MSP), the strongest contributors (in terms of Wald and OR) were level of education (primary school ♀OR = 1.26*** and ♂OR = 1.30***, and high school ♀OR = 1.18*** and ♂OR = 1.20*** compared with university education), occupation status (part-time ♀OR = 1.17*** and ♂OR = 1.14***, and retired ♀OR = 1.17* and ♂OR = 1.08 compared with full-time), age (♀OR = 1.002 and ♂OR = 1.008***), BMI with a curvilinear relationship (♀OR = 1.08***/OR2 = .99** and ♂ OR = 1.01/OR2 = 1.00) and low level of physical activity (♀OR = 1.08* and OR = 1.08).

3.2 Adjustment to violence and health status

By using the variable assessing the negative impact of violence (see Method section 2.1 Questionnaires), four clusters indicating the adjustment status subsequent to experience with violence, or the degree of resilience, could be created. The cluster not reporting any exposure to violence represented the majority (0-unexposed group, n = 9,103, 70.1%). Among the subjects reporting violence, three clusters were identified: 1-resilient (experienced violence but no negative impact, n = 2,255, 58.1%), 2-vulnerable (experienced violence and affected by it to some extent, n = 1,451, 37.4%), and 3-highly vulnerable (experienced violence and largely affected by it, n = 172, 4.4%). The gender differences (women vs. men) for the unexposed (52% vs 48%) and the resilient (49% vs. 51%) groups were minor, but were significant for the vulnerable (66% vs. 34%, p < .001) and highly vulnerable (75% vs. 25%, p < .001) groups.

The crude analysis indicated considerably worse mental health status in the vulnerable clusters compared to the unexposed or resilient clusters (Table 4). The resilient cluster had slightly worse mental health than the unexposed cluster. Adjusting for the number of violent events maintained the findings; however, the minor difference in mental health between the resilient and unexposed cluster disappeared. Including all the covariates in the model did not change this finding. A final noticeable finding was that the number of experienced psychological threats (from childhood and adulthood to recently, range 0–3 events) significantly predicted poorer mental health, while the number of physical violent events had no contribution.

The regression model for musculoskeletal pain (MSP) painted a rather similar picture, except that the resilient group had significantly more pain symptoms than the unexposed group but less than the vulnerable groups that had the highest MSP scores. Again, a higher number of experienced threats predicted more MSP than a higher number of actual occurrences of violence.

Table 4. Regression Analysis Examining the Relationship Between Adaptation Status, Mental Distress and Severe Musculoskeletal Pain.

3.3 Adjustment to violence and granting of disability pension (DP)

In the crude analyses, the rate of DP was comparable in the resilient and unexposed clusters, whereas the vulnerable clusters had a significantly higher risk of early DP (Table 5). Adjusting for the number of violent events and the covariates did not change these findings for women. However, the risk of granting early DP was now smaller for men in the resilient as compared to the unexposed cluster. A higher number of experienced psychological threats predicted a higher rate of DP among men but not among women, whereas physical violence had no contribution.


The present population-based survey examined relationships between exposure to violence and mental health (depressed/anxious mood), symptoms of severe musculoskeletal pain and early granting of disability pension. The study examined two types of violent events: psychological violence (threats/feeling tormented) and actual physical violence (beaten/kicked).

Our first hypothesis that psychological violence represents a stronger health hazard than actual violence was supported. Those reporting more psychological violence reported poorer mental health than those reporting physical violence. The same findings emerged for musculoskeletal pain, as well as for early disability pension among men. The negative role of physical violence was minor in comparison. Interpersonal, intentional violence that usually includes threats thus represents a health hazard as reported previously [2, 3]; however, the present study indicated that it affected all health and functional outcome variables.

The second hypothesis received support, as subjects classified as resilient showed a comparable level of job functioning and good mental health as unexposed subjects. Men classified as resilient even showed a slightly reduced risk of early disability pension compared to unexposed men. The resilience group, however, showed slightly elevated symptoms of severe musculoskeletal pain, as the hypothesis of allostasis would predict [3335].

The third hypothesis that vulnerable subjects would show the poorest health across all outcome variables was also supported.

The present study also indicates a dose-response relationship between violence and health, particularly for threats of violence. Subjects experiencing a higher number of such events had an increased risk of musculoskeletal pain and particularly poorer mental health, which is in line with most other studies [12, 13, 18, 45]. Moreover, the coefficients for exposure to violence in childhood were generally higher than during other life epochs, thus restating the importance of preventing childhood abuse or violence [4650].

The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study involving more than 17,000 subjects found a consistent relationship between ACE and mental health problems (e.g., drug abuse, depression and suicide) as well as physical diseases (e.g., ischemic heart, liver and sexually transmitted diseases) [51]. The number of ACEs also seemed to form a dose-response relationship with, for example, lifetime risk of depression [50] akin to what was reported in the present study. The finding of more musculoskeletal pain following exposure to childhood violence also agrees with previous reports [52].

4.1 Resilience in the face of violence

The majority of subjects experiencing violence do not develop lasting mental health problems [27]. In the present study, six out of 10 subjects reported no noticeable negative health impact following violent encounters, which corresponds to findings by others [53, 54]. Exposed but resilient subjects functioned equally well as unexposed subjects with regard to mental health, and even slightly better with regard to job functioning (lower risk of disability pensioning). Experience with hardships in life, such as violence, may have the paradoxical effect of providing future protection against later mental health problems given that coping is possible [55]. As the resilient subjects described themselves as “not affected,” such a functional coping response might underlie their good mental health. However, the lack of assessed coping variables in the study makes this assumption unsubstantiated. A negative finding was that resilient subjects showed slightly higher odds of musculoskeletal pain compared to unexposed subjects. These findings may indicate that resilient subjects develop more health complaints that are possibly caused by the increased allostatic load [35] following encounters with violence. This makes sense, as psychological violence, which represents a more chronic stressor and thus a particular health hazard, may also generate stronger and longer-lasting neuroendocrine stress or immunological responses [3234]. However, it seems that resilient subjects do not allow these physical ailments to overshadow their mental well-being or ability to function adequately by keeping their job.

4.2 Gender differences

Some gender differences were noted, as indicated by earlier reports [23, 25]. Men were 1.3 times more often exposed to violence in childhood compared to women (12.9% vs. 9.4%, respectively), whereas the ratio was 1.8 and in the opposite direction in adulthood (4.9% vs. 9.0%, respectively). These age-related differences coincide with a large Swedish national public health report from 2012 [56]. Women thus suffer more health hazards than men do in adult years. Moreover, the mental health of women was more negatively impacted by exposure to violence than men’s mental health, but this difference was minor (R2 = 7.5% vs 6.7%, respectively). The current study nevertheless showed a trend for a slightly raised vulnerability among women, which a population study in a neighboring country (Sweden) also indicated [23]. Exposure to psychological violence in childhood was more reliably related to poorer health among women than men, particularly with regard to musculoskeletal pain. Women also dominated the vulnerable adaptation clusters, which indicate that the depressogenic effects of violent encounters are in general higher for women than for men.

An opposite gender difference in our study was that men’s health (both mental and physical pain) was slightly more negatively associated with physical violence in childhood compared to women. As the present study did not specify the kind of violence experienced, the reason for the difference is unknown. Men are more often violated non-domestically [57] whereas women more often experience interpersonal violence at home [23]. However, since it the perpetration happened during the childhood years, it may have been of an intentional and interpersonal character, which may be worse [3] for men.

4.3 Implications for prevention

The negative relation between childhood violence and poor adult health is well established, yet, rarely acknowledged in general medical practice or emergency departments. Physicians infrequently ask for history of abuse and only 2–5% of patients tell the physician without being asked [58]. In a Norwegian study, physical abuse was only identified among 0.4% of the referred adolescent patients [59]. The failure of health personnel to ask direct question about abuse or violence may even contribute to the patients’ tendency to avoid bringing up these disturbing experiences, thus indirectly contributing to sustained health impairments.

To prevent health problems as a result of violence, barriers to overcome [60] include a proper institutional policy for effective screening/identification and a policy allocating sufficient time for high-quality consultations. Health personnel need privacy and time to conduct complete patient histories, adeaute training in clinical communication skills to facilitate detection of signs and symptoms of violence [1].

4.4 Strengths and limitations of the study

An obvious strength of the present study is the large sample size, the epidemiological design and the high quality control of the data collection process. The attendance rate (66%) was good compared with other large health surveys in Norway, such as the HUNT (Health Study of Nord-Trøndelag) study (56% response rate, N = 59,000). In a large epidemiological study in Norway, the non-response bias was small for correlation coefficients compared to prevalence point estimates [61]. As the main research questions of the current study concerned correlations, the impact of non-response should be minimal.

On the other hand, the large sample size only allowed self-report as the basis for classifying subjects as unexposed (i.e., normal or healthy), resilient, or vulnerable. Here, large-scaled epidemiological studies have a disadvantage compared to clinical studies, where it is feasible to conduct structured diagnostic interview methods to increase the validity [26, 54] of clustering subjects into resilient and vulnerable groups. However, as the point prevalence of psychopathology in the population is low [62], the number of wrongly classified subjects should constitute only a very small group. As the precision of most reported coefficients was high (p’s < .001), particularly with regard to mental health, a correction of any bias incurred by the self-report method is not expected to nullify the significance of the present findings. Moreover, as the resilience group showed an even smaller risk of early disability pension compared to the unexposed subjects, a considerable number of misclassifications would be required to change this direction qualitatively.

The use of paper-and-pencil methods to retrospectively collect information about exposure to violence has some well-known limitations as well as benefits. The main concern relates to under- versus over-reporting of violence. The poorer statistical power that goes along with underreporting was not an issue here. In addition, as the questionnaire method does not trigger embarrassment or fear of social stigma as much as face-to-face methods [63], the questionnaire approach should identify true cases acceptably well [64]. Rather, over-reporting may be a larger problem due to the global format of the two violence questions. The respondents’ personal interpretation of what constitutes “violence” may encompass a wider range of milder cases [65]. To what extent this was the case in the present study is unknown.


The present study confirmed that exposure to violence increases the risk of poorer mental health in terms of more depression/anxiety, but also somatic health in terms of increased symptoms of severe musculoskeletal pain. The effect sizes of the relationships were in the small range, as oft reported. Psychological violence was more negatively related to poorer health than actual physical violence. In addition, a dose-response relationship was observed; a higher number of exposure to violent events implied increasingly poorer health, particularly mental health. About six of 10 subjects did not report a noticeable negative impact following violence in terms of health outcomes, hence indicating good adjustment or resilience. The resilient group had equally good mental health as subjects not reporting any violence but had slightly elevated symptoms of severe musculoskeletal pain. On the other hand, their risk of early disability pension was lower. Resilience to violence is quite prevalent, for which future studies should examine possible reasons.

Author Contributions

Analyzed the data: OF. Wrote the paper: OF NE JHR UB JAO GP.


  1. 1. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB, Lozano R. World report on violence and health. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002.
  2. 2. Weaver TL, Clum GA. Psychological distress associated with interpersonal violence: A meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 1995;15(2):115–40.
  3. 3. Nickerson A, Aderka IM, Bryant RA, Litz BT, Hofmann SG. Accidental and intentional perpetration of serious injury or death: Correlates and relationship to trauma exposure. J Trauma Inj Infect Crit Care. 2011;71(6):1821–8.
  4. 4. Blanchard EB, Hickling EJ, Mitnick N, Taylor AE, Loos WR, Buckley T. The impact of severity of physical injury and perception of life threat in the development of post-traumatic stress disorder in motor vehicle accident victims. Behav Res Ther. 1995;33:529–34. pmid:7598673
  5. 5. Ehlers A, Clark DM. A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder. Behav Res Ther. 2000;38:319–45. pmid:10761279
  6. 6. Suglia SF, Sapra KJ, Koenen KC. Violence and cardiovascular health: A systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(2):205–12. pmid:25599905
  7. 7. Akyuz A, Yavan T, Sahiner G, Kilic A. Domestic violence and woman's reproductive health: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2012;17(6):514–8.
  8. 8. Hinkka K, Kuoppala J, Vaananen-Tomppo I, Lamminpaa A. Psychosocial work factors and sick leave, occupational accident, and disability pension: a cohort study of civil servants. Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine. 2013;55(2):191–7.
  9. 9. Iverson KM, Dick A, McLaughlin KA, Smith BN, Bell ME, Gerber MR, et al. Exposure to interpersonal violence and its associations with psychiatric morbidity in a U.S. national sample: A gender comparison. Psychology of Violence. 2013;3(3):273–87. pmid:25232484
  10. 10. Resnick HS, Acierno R, Kilpatrick DG. Health impact of interpersonal violence: II. Medical and mental health outcomes. Behavioral Medicine. 1997;23(2):65–78. pmid:9309346
  11. 11. Hardt J, Bernert S, Matschinger H, Angermeier MC, Vilagut G, Bruffaerts R, et al. Suicidality and its relationship with depression, alcohol disorders and childhood experiences of violence: Results from the ESEMeD study. J Affect Disord. 2015;175:168–74. pmid:25618003
  12. 12. Walker LS, Greene JW. Negative life events and symptom resolution in pediatric abdominal pain patients. J Pediatr Psychol. 1991;16(3):341–60. pmid:1890558
  13. 13. Lien L, Haavet OR, Thoresen M, Heyerdahl S, Bjertness E. Mental health problems, negative life events, perceived pressure and the frequency of acute infections among adolescents. Results from a cross-sectional, multicultural, population-based study. Acta Paediatr. 2007;96(2):301–6. pmid:17429925.
  14. 14. Theorell T, Rahe RH. Psychosocial factors and myocardial infarction. I. An inpatient study in Sweden. J Psychosom Res. 1971;15(1):25–31. pmid:5576342
  15. 15. Eliassen BM, Melhus M, Hansen KL, Broderstad AR. Marginalisation and cardiovascular disease among rural Sami in Northern Norway: a population-based cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13(522):1–10.
  16. 16. Courtney JG, Longnecker MP, Theorell T, Deverdier MG. Stressful life events and the risk of colorectal cancer. Epidemiology. 1993;4(5):407–14.
  17. 17. Lien L, Halvorsen JA, Haavet OR, Dalgard F. The relation of early experienced negative life events and current itch. A longitudinal study among adolescents in Oslo, Norway. J Psychosom Res. 2012;72(3):226–9. pmid:22325703
  18. 18. Kendler KS, Karkowski LM, Prescott CA. Causal relationship between stressful life events and the onset of major depression. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;156(6):837–41. pmid:10360120
  19. 19. Castine MR, Meador-Woodruff JH, Dalack GW. The role of life events in onset and recurrent episodes of schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. J Psychiatr Res. 1998;32(5):283–8. pmid:9789206
  20. 20. Cooley-Quille M, Boyd RC, Frantz E, Walsh J. Emotional and behavioral impact of exposure to community violence in inner-city adolescents. J Clin Child Psychol. 2001;30:199–206. pmid:11393920
  21. 21. Margolin G, Gordis EB. The effects of family and community violence on children. Ann Rev Psychol. 2000;51:445–79.
  22. 22. Hinkka K, Kuoppala J, Vaananen-Tomppo I, Lamminpaa A. Psychosocial work factors and sick leave, occupational accident, and disability pension: A cohort study of civil servants. J Occ Environ Med. 2013;55(2):191–7.
  23. 23. Fridh M, Lindstrom M, Rosvall M. Experience of physical violence and mental health among young men and women: A population-based study in Sweden. BMC Public Health. 2014;14(29):1–10. pmid:24410750; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3897904.
  24. 24. Evans SE, Davies C, DiLillo D. Exposure to domestic violence: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression Viol Behav. 2008;13(2):131–40.
  25. 25. Schlack R, Petermann F. Prevalence and gender patterns of mental health problems in German youth with experience of violence: The KiGGS study. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:628. pmid:23819775; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3727956.
  26. 26. Werner EE, Smith RS. Journeys from childhood to midlife: Risk, resilience, and recovery. Ithaca, US: Cornell University Press; 2001.
  27. 27. Bonanno GA. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol. 2004;59(1):20–8. 2004-10043-003. pmid:14736317
  28. 28. Luthar SS. Resilience in development: A synthesis of research across five decades. In: Cohen DJ, Cicchetti D, editors. Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adaptation. 3. 2nd ed. Hoboken, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2006. p. 739–95.
  29. 29. Rutter M. Resilience in the face of adversity: Protective factors and resistance to psychiatric disorder. Br J Psychiatr. 1985;147:598–611.
  30. 30. Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: What are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(2):65–76. 2004-15468-001. pmid:12830300
  31. 31. McEwen BS. Stress, adaptation, and disease. Allostasis and allostatic load. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. 1998;840:33–44. pmid:9629234
  32. 32. Danese A, McEwen BS. Adverse childhood experiences, allostasis, allostatic load, and age-related disease. Physiology & Behavior. 2012;106(1):29–39.
  33. 33. Carpenter LL, Carvalho JP, Tyrka AR, Wier LM, Mello AF, Mello MF, et al. Decreased adrenocorticotropic hormone and cortisol responses to stress in healthy adults reporting significant childhood maltreatment. Biolological Psychiatry. 2007;62(10):1080–7.
  34. 34. Carpenter LL, Gawuga CE, Tyrka AR, Lee JK, Anderson GM, Price LH. Association between plasma IL-6 response to acute stress and early-life adversity in healthy adults. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010;35(13):2617–23. pmid:20881945
  35. 35. Karatsoreos IN, McEwen BS. Psychobiological allostasis: resistance, resilience and vulnerability. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2011;15(12):576–84.
  36. 36. Stickley A, Carlson P. Factors associated with non-lethal violent victimization in Sweden in 2004–2007. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2010;38:404–10. pmid:20215484
  37. 37. Lorant V, Deliège D, Eaton W, Robert A, Philippot P, Ansseau M. Socioeconomic Inequalities in Depression: A Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. 2003;157(2):98–112. pmid:12522017
  38. 38. McBeth J, Jones K. Epidemiology of chronic musculoskeletal pain. Best Practice & Research Clinical Rheumatology. 2007;21(3):403–25.
  39. 39. Anandacoomarasamy A, Caterson I, Sambrook P, Fransen M, March L. The impact of obesity on the musculoskeletal system. International Journal of Obesity. 2008;32:211–22. pmid:17848940
  40. 40. Christine Lin C-W, McAuley JH, Macedo L, Barnett DC, Smeets RJ, Verbunte JA. Relationship between physical activity and disability in low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pain. 2011;152(3):607–13. pmid:21251757
  41. 41. Jacobsen BK, Eggen AE, Mathiesen EB, Wilsgaard T, Njolstad I. Cohort profile: the Tromso Study. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41(4):961–7. pmid:21422063; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3429870.
  42. 42. Eggen AE, Mathiesen EB, Wilsgaard T, Jacobsen BK, Njølstad I. The Sixth survey of the Tromsø Study (Tromsø 6) in 2007–08: Colleborative research in the interface between clinical medicine and epidemiology: Study objektives, desing, data collection procedures, and attendance in a mulitipurpose poplulation-based health survey. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2013;41(1):65–80.
  43. 43. Sandanger I, Moum T, Ingebrigtsen G, Dalgard OS, Sorensen T, Bruusgaard D. Concordance between symptom screening and diagnostic procedure: the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 and the Composite International Diagnostic Interview I. Soc Psychiatr Epidem. 1998;33(7):345–54.
  44. 44. Werner V. Regression models as a tool in medical research. NY: Taylor & Francis Inc; 2012.
  45. 45. Jerlock M, Kjellgren KI, Gaston-Johansson F, Lissner L, Manhem K, Rosengren A, et al. Psychosocial profile in men and women with unexplained chest pain. J Int Med. 2008;264(3):265–74.
  46. 46. Arnow BA. Relationships between childhood maltreatment, adult health and psychiatric outcomes, and medical utilization. J Clin Psychiatr. 2004;65(suppl 12):10–5.
  47. 47. Goodwin RD, Stein MB. Association between childhood trauma and physical disorder among adults in the United States. Psychol Med. 2004;34(3):509–20. pmid:15259836
  48. 48. Davis D, Luecken L, Zautra A. Are reports of childhood abuse related to the experience of chronic pain in adulthood. Clin J Pain. 2005;21(5):398–405. pmid:16093745
  49. 49. Felitti VJ. The relationship between adverse childhood experiences and adult health: Turning gold into lead. Permanente J. 2002;6(1):44–7.
  50. 50. Chapman DP, Whitfield CL, Felitti VJ, Dube SR, Edwards VJ, Anda RF. Adverse childhood experiences and the risk of depressive disorders in adulthood. J Affect Disord. 2004;82(2):217–25. pmid:15488250
  51. 51. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) study. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245–58.
  52. 52. Wegman HL, Stetler C. A meta-analytic review of the effects of childhood abuse on medical outcomes in adulthood. Psychosom Med. 2009;71(8):805–12. pmid:19779142
  53. 53. Werner EE. High-risk children in young adulthood: A longitudinal study from birth to 32 years. Am J Orthopsychiatr. 1989;59(1):72–81.
  54. 54. Collishaw S, Pickles A, Messer J, Rutter M, Shearer C, Maughan B. Resilience to adult psychopathology following childhood maltreatment: Evidence from a community sample. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007;31(3):211–29.
  55. 55. Beasley M, Thompson T, Davidson J. Resilience in response to life stress: The effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness. Personality and Individual Differences. 2003;34(1):77–95.
  56. 56. Leander K, Berlin M, Eriksson A, Gådin KG, Hensing G, Krantz G, et al. Violence: Health in Sweden: The national public health report 2012. Chapter 12. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2012;40(9):229–54. pmid:23238410
  57. 57. Kendler KS, Thornton LM, Prescott CA. Gender differences in the rates of exposure to stressful life events and sensitivity to their depressogenic effects. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001;158(4):587–93. pmid:11282693
  58. 58. Springer K, Sheridan J, Kuo D, Carnes M. The long-term health outcomes of childhood abuse. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2003;18(10):864–70. pmid:14521650
  59. 59. Reigstad B, Jørgensen K, Wichstrøm L. Diagnosed and self-reported childhood abuse in national and regional samples of child and adolescent psychiatric patients: Prevalences and correlates. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry 2006;60(1):58–66. pmid:16500801
  60. 60. Sprague S SM, Madden K, Swaleh R, Goslings JC, Bhandari M. Barriers to and facilitators for screening women for intimate partner violence insurgical fracture clinics: a qualitative descriptive approach. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14(122):1–10.
  61. 61. Stormark KM, Heiervang E, Heimann M, Lundervold A, Gillberg C. Predicting nonresponse bias from teacher ratings of mental health problems in primary school children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2008;36(3):411–9. pmid:18161021
  62. 62. Kringlen E, Torgersen S, Cramer V. A Norwegian psychiatric epidemiological study. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2001;158(7):1091–8.
  63. 63. Walby S, Myhill A. New survey methodologies in researching violence against women. Br J Criminol. 2001;41(3):502–22.
  64. 64. Kataoka Y, Yaju Y, Eto H, Horiuchi S. Self-administered questionnaire versus interview as a screening method for intimate partner violence in the prenatal setting in Japan: A randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregn Child. 2010;10(84):1–7.
  65. 65. Helweg-Larsen K, Sørensen J, Brønnum-Hansen H, M K. Risk factors for violence exposure and attributable healthcare costs: Results from the Danish national health interview surveys. Scandinavian journal of public health. 2011;39(1):10–6. pmid:20696769