Help-Seeking After Intimate-Partner Violence in India: Findings from NFHS-5 Analysis

Draft · sources not independently verified

Draft. Sources not independently verified. Prepared by the Digital Catalyzt team; check every statistic, law, quotation and contact detail against the original source before relying on it. Not legal, medical or peer-reviewed advice. In an emergency call 112.

CASE STUDY 49

Formal and informal support pathways, with implications for safe referrals

Prepared by Digital Catalyzt | Research and product-design draft | 29 October 2026

1. Abstract / Executive Summary

This case study reviews a peer-reviewed analysis using India’s National Family Health Survey-5 (2019–2021) to examine help-seeking among women who experienced intimate-partner violence. The paper reports analysis of 72,320 women aged 18–49, of whom 17,765 had ever faced intimate-partner violence in the study’s definition. It reports that 14.2% of women who experienced physical and/or sexual intimate-partner violence sought any help in the relevant analysis, while informal sources were common. These figures should be read according to the paper’s exact denominators and definitions, not generalised to every form of violence or every woman in India.

2. Keywords

intimate-partner violence; help-seeking; NFHS-5; informal support; formal services; India

3. Introduction and Research Question

Which support pathways are reported by women experiencing intimate-partner violence, and how can digital products make referrals safer without assuming that disclosure or police contact is always the user’s preferred first step?

4. Methods and Evidence Selection

Secondary review of the PubMed-indexed article abstract describing analysis of NFHS-5 (2019–2021) data. The study used multivariable analysis to examine factors associated with help-seeking. This report does not independently reanalyse the survey microdata or verify every model specification.

5. Case / Research Context

Help-seeking after intimate-partner violence is shaped by safety, finances, social ties, access to services, trust, stigma and the risk of retaliation. Formal and informal support can serve different roles, and a safe referral pathway must be user-directed rather than assuming one universal response.

6. Findings and Evidence

The article reports analysis of 72,320 women aged 18–49; 17,765 were identified as having ever experienced intimate-partner violence under the study’s definitions.
Among women who had experienced physical and/or sexual intimate-partner violence, 14.2% reportedly sought any help in the analysis described in the abstract. The exact denominator and outcome definition should be checked in the full paper before public reuse.
The abstract reports that informal support was common, with families frequently approached; formal sources included police and doctors.
The study reports associations between selected individual, relationship/household and community factors and help-seeking. Associations should not be presented as causal explanations.

7. Discussion and Interpretation

Low formal help-seeking should not be interpreted as consent, low severity or a lack of need. A person may prioritise immediate safety, confidential advice or a trusted informal contact. Conversely, family support may not always be safe or appropriate. Tools should support a range of user-led options and avoid pressuring survivors into a particular action.

8. Legal / Policy Context

Services should provide confidential, accessible information, explain limits to confidentiality, support informed choice, and coordinate referrals where consent and legal requirements permit. Frontline responders need trauma-informed practice and protocols for imminent danger and child safeguarding.

9. Implications for VETRIPEN

Potential product hypotheses: discreet access to verified support information; user-controlled contact preferences; quick-exit and notification-privacy controls; local support options; and explicit confirmation before sharing location or incident information. Avoid storing detailed abuse narratives by default. Conduct threat modelling for shared devices, coercive monitoring and notification previews.

10. Recommendations and Evaluation Metrics

Measure successful access to support information, referral completion when users opt in, user comprehension of sharing choices, accidental disclosure incidents, accessibility and safe-exit usability. Do not rank users by whether they disclose, contact police or leave a relationship.

Recommended implementation safeguards: consent by default; minimal data collection; clear sharing status; no unapproved emergency-service integration; accessibility testing; incident-response procedures; and a documented process for reviewing failures.

11. Limitations

This is a secondary report of a survey analysis. Self-reported violence and help-seeking may be affected by recall and disclosure constraints. The abstract summary does not substitute for checking the full paper’s tables, definitions, model assumptions and confidence intervals. Results apply to the analysed survey population and study definitions.

12. Conclusion

The evidence reviewed here supports a cautious, user-centred approach to women’s safety: make risks and support pathways understandable, preserve user choice, and evaluate actual outcomes rather than assuming that technology or a single intervention guarantees safety. Findings must remain tied to the study populations, definitions and methods cited.

13. References and Source Notes

The links below are the source records consulted for this report. A source link is not a claim that every detail has been independently verified against the complete underlying dataset or full text.

14. Declarations

Research status: secondary-source synthesis; not a new field study. Funding and conflicts: no external research funding or formal peer review is represented in this document. Product relationship: VETRIPEN implications are design hypotheses for evaluation, not validated intervention outcomes.

15. Disclaimer

DISCLAIMER — INDEPENDENT RESEARCH DOCUMENT. Prepared privately by Digital Catalyzt as part of an independent research and product-design programme related to women’s safety and the proposed VETRIPEN service. For research, education, discussion and preliminary product planning only. Unless expressly stated and documented, this document has not undergone independent peer review and is not a journal publication, government statement, legal opinion, medical or psychological assessment, or formal investigation. Claims are limited to the sources and scope stated; sources may contain limitations, errors, incomplete data or later revisions. Hypothetical examples must not be represented as real events or interviews. Legal and policy discussion is general information, not legal advice. Proposed VETRIPEN features are design hypotheses unless independently evaluated. This document does not guarantee prevention of harm, emergency response, message delivery, confidentiality in every circumstance or any particular outcome. Readers should assess cited evidence, limitations and local context independently.

← Back to all research