Interpersonal violence experienced by people with communication disabilities in Iraq: Sustainable Development Goals 16 and 5

Figures & data

Table I. Participant characteristics.

	Difficulties with communication (n = 93)		Other disabilities (n = 149)^c
	COMM1 (n = 20)^a	COMM2 (n = 73)^b
Male, n (%)	11 (55%)	37 (50.7%)	83 (55.7%)
Female, n (%)	9 (45%)	36 (49.3%)	66 (44.3%)
Years of education Mean (SD)	4 (5.1)	6 (5.1)	9 (5.3)
Disability in least 1 additional domain (non-communication), n (%)	18 (90%)	62 (84.9%)	–

^a“A lot of difficulty” or “cannot do at all” on the communication domain of the WG-SS.

^b“Some difficulty” on the communication domain of the WG-SS.

^c“A lot of difficulty” or “cannot do at all” on at least one domain of WG-SS, with “no difficulty” in the communication domain.

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents reporting communication supports as helpful.

Table II. Reported exposure to violence.

	Reported violence exposure, n (%)		Other disabilities (no communication component) (n = 149)
Violence type	Comm1 (n = 20)	Comm2 (n = 73)
Exposure to any type of violence
Male, n (%)	6 (55.5%)	28 (75.7%)	5 (78.3%)
Female, n (%)	7 (77.8%)	31 (86.1%)	52 (78.8%)
Deprivation, n (%)	8 (40%)	30 (41.1%)	55 (36.9%)
Physical, n (%)	7 (35%)	34 (46.6%)	45 (30.2%)
Verbal/Psychological, n (%)	6 (30%)	27 (37%)	88 (59.1%)
Sexual, n (%)	2 (10%)	5 (6.8%)	22 (14.8%)
Other, n (%)	9 (45%)	40 (54.8%)	59 (39.6%)

Participants could report more than 1 type of violence.

Figure 2. Percentage of participants with a communication disability (COMM1) and reporting some communication difficulty (COMM2) seeking supports (of those who experienced violence).

Figure 3. Percentage of participants with a communication disability (COMM1) and reporting some communication difficulty (COMM2) reporting barriers to accessing support (of those exposed to violence).