TDV includes a range of controlling or aggressive behaviors such as psychological, physical, and sexual violence, stalking, bullying, and even homicide. Studies indicate that TDV affects between one in four to one in eight middle-to-high school students before age 18, with prevalence peaking between ages 16 and 18. The Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) reports that one in eight high school students experience physical or sexual dating violence, and many also face harassment and online bullying (Basile et al., 2020).

Sociodemographic factors play a role in the risk of dating violence. Older youth, ethnic/racial minority females, and those from low-income communities report higher rates of physical and sexual dating violence. Female students, LGBTQ+ students, and those unsure of their sexual identity have the highest prevalence of dating violence (Breidieg et al., 2014). The consequences of TDV are severe and long-lasting, including risky sexual behaviors, substance use, unintended pregnancies, eating disorders, mental health issues, and poor academic and social outcomes. TDV is also linked to future violence and chronic health problems (Coulter et al., 2017).

Rural youth report higher rates of physical dating violence compared to urban youth, yet they are understudied. Rural young males and females report higher rates of dating violence than their urban and suburban counterparts. This disparity highlights the unique challenges faced by rural youth, including limited access to support and accountability systems. Rural male perpetrators are significantly more likely than their urban counterparts to inflict serious bodily harm and use lethal weapons during abusive episodes. They are also twice as likely to threaten to murder an intimate partner, highlighting the severity of rural intimate partner violence (IPV; Huntley et al, 2019).

Rural victims face the worst psychosocial, mental, and physical outcomes due to violence-tolerant attitudes, negative bystander behaviors, and the assumed privacy of family violence in isolated communities. Additional regional risk factors include traditional gender norms, lack of confidential resources, long distances to care, and geographical isolation, making rural partner violence particularly distressing. Economic hardship, service provision gaps, the opioid epidemic, a shortage of trained service providers, and high social cohesion exacerbate rural dating violence. Cultural factors promoting self-sufficiency and trauma fatalism further prevent help-seeking, especially among rural men who have sex with men (MSM). These issues contribute to an aversion to help-seeking and abuse disclosure among rural boys and men (Hiebert, 2018).

Efforts to engage men and boys in violence reduction through gender transformative strategies have shown promising results, fostering gender equality and reducing violence. However, research on the impact of rurality and male-centered programs on dating violence among rural youths is limited. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted service delivery for IPV victims and perpetrators, particularly in underserved rural areas. Technology-based interventions offer potential solutions, providing privacy, convenience, and confidentiality. These interventions, such as smartphone apps and web-based platforms, have expanded support services for survivors but have not been widely studied with rural and male cohorts (Glass et al., 2022).

References

Basile KC, Clayton HB, DeGue S, et al. Interpersonal Violence Victimization Among High School Students — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2019. MMWR Suppl 2020;69(Suppl-1):28–37. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6901a4

Breiding, M. J., Smith, S. G., Basile, K. C., Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Merrick, M. T. (2014). Prevalence and characteristics of sexual violence, stalking, and intimate partner violence victimization–national intimate partner and sexual violence survey, United States, 2011. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Surveillance summaries (Washington, D.C. : 2002), 63(8), 1–18.

Coulter, R. W. S., Mair, C., Miller, E., Blosnich, J. R., Matthews, D. D., & McCauley, H. L. (2017). Prevalence of Past-Year Sexual Assault Victimization Among Undergraduate Students: Exploring Differences by and Intersections of Gender Identity, Sexual Identity, and Race/Ethnicity. Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 18(6), 726–736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0762-8

Glass, N. E., Clough, A., Messing, J. T., Bloom, T., Brown, M. L., Eden, K. B., Campbell, J. C., Gielen, A., Laughon, K., Grace, K. T., Turner, R. M., Alvarez, C., Case, J., Barnes-Hoyt, J., Alhusen, J., Hanson, G. C., & Perrin, N. A. (2022). Longitudinal Impact of the myPlan App on Health and Safety Among College Women Experiencing Partner Violence. Journal of interpersonal violence, 37(13-14), NP11436–NP11459. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260521991880

Huntley, A. L., Potter, L., Williamson, E., Malpass, A., Szilassy, E., & Feder, G. (2019). Help-seeking by male victims of domestic violence and abuse (DVA): a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ open, 9(6), e021960. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021960

Hiebert, B., Leipert, B., Regan, S., & Burkell, J. (2018). Rural Men’s Health, Health Information Seeking, and Gender Identities: A Conceptual Theoretical Review of the Literature. American journal of men’s health, 12(4), 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557988316649177