Domestic violence is a global public health issue that is often normalized in patriarchal societies like Pakistan due to institutionalized cultural norms. Given the scattered and contradictory findings in this field, this study aimed to estimate the prevalence of domestic violence among Pakistani women. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA protocol. A systematic search was conducted across six electronic databases until August 2025. Inclusion criteria encompassed cross-sectional studies that reported the prevalence of violence among Pakistani women. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the JBI checklist, and analyses were performed using Stata software and a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² statistic and publication bias was assessed using the Egger’s test. Based on the 24 eligible studies, the overall prevalence of violence was estimated to be 52% (95% confidence interval (CI): 40.6%-64.1%). The prevalence of psychological violence was 54.2% (95% CI: 42.7%–65.7%), physical violence was 40.4% (95% CI: 31.9%–48.9%), and sexual violence was 27.9% (95% CI: 17.9%–37.9%). Psychological violence was the most common form of violence. Heterogeneity between studies was very high (I²>99%), and studies using investigator-developed instruments reported higher estimates than those using standard instruments. Our analysis suggested a potential downward trend in overall violence over time. Domestic violence against Pakistani women remains highly prevalent, with more than half of women reporting at least one form of abuse. However, estimates varied substantially between studies and measurement tools, and a significant downward trend over time was observed. These findings underscore the need for routine enquiry and support for survivors within health services, as well as sustained legal and educational interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gheshlagh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: