Meta-regression analysis reveals a 39.2% revictimisation rate in violence victims, highlighting the significance of PTSD and gender factors.
The literature has consistently demonstrated that being the victim of interpersonal violence increases the risk of future interpersonal violence (i.e., revictimisation). In this context, post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is highly important since it has been investigated as a risk factor and consequence of revictimisation. The aim of the current study was to (a) compute a rate of revictimisation across types of interpersonal violence, and (b) examine which factors are associated with observed rates of revictimisation. We conducted a pre‐registered systematic search in PubMed, APA PsycInfo, PTSDpubs, Web of Science, and Scopus, that resulted in N = 1286 individual records and n = 19 inclusions (PROSPERO ID: CRD42023446788). Criteria for inclusion were: adult human sample, assessment of PTSD symptoms that precedes assessment of interpersonal revictimisation, published in a peer‐reviewed journal, longitudinal study design. Most studies focused on intimate partner revictimisation, followed by sexual revictimisation. The pooled rate of revictimisation was 39.2% for the overall group, and 53.4% for those experiencing intimate partner revictimisation. Only the proportion of females was positively associated with the observed rate of revictimisation. None of the other factors: presence of severe PTSD symptoms, mode of assessment (PTSD), type of sample, or duration of the follow‐up period, were associated with the rates of revictimisation. We recommend the use of gold‐standard assessment for PTSD, more representative and more clearly defined samples, and the development of a validated measure of revictimisation. For clinicians, we recommend paying attention to and providing psychoeducation about revictimisation and potential ways to prevent this. In sum, revictimisation is highly prevalent, but remains poorly understood. This gap may be addressed by rigorous methodological improvements (research) and psychoeducation (clinical practice).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kühner et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: