Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8145 Families

JRHS 2014; 14(4): 251-257

Copyright © Journal of Research in Health Sciences

Intimate Partner Violence confronting Women in Nepal: An Analysis through Individual, Empowerment, Family and Societal Level Factors

Koustuv Dalal (PhD) a,b* , Shumei Wang (PhD) c , Leif Svanström (PhD) b,d

a Heart for Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion (CIPSP), Schoolhouse of Wellness & Medical Sciences, Department of Public Health Science, Örebro Academy, Örebro, Sweden

b Schoolhouse of Life Sciences, University of Skövde, Skövde, Sweden

c Schoolhouse of Public Health, Key Laboratory of Public Health Safety, Ministry building of Education, Fudan University, Shanghai, Prc

d WHO CC Community Safety Promotion, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden

* Correspondence: Koustuv Dalal (PhD), Electronic mail: koustuv2010@hotmail.com

Received : 27 May 2014, Revised : 20 September 2014, Accustomed : 30 September 2014, Available online : eighteen October 2014

Abstract

Groundwork: The electric current study estimated the national prevalence rate of intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) in Nepal. Besides, the individual level, empowerment level, family and societal level factors were assessed to chronicle with the victims of IPAVW in Nepal.

Methods: Nationally representative sample of 4210 women of reproductive age (15-49 twelvemonth) were included in the study. Household surveys using two stage sampling procedures, face to face interview with pre-tested questionnaires were performed. Emotional, physical and sexual violence were target variables. A violence variable was constructed from these three types of violence. Private level factors were measured by historic period, residency, teaching, faith and husband ' southward teaching. Empowerment factors included employment status and various decision making elements. Family and societal factors included economic status, neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage index, history of family violence, hubby ' s controlling beliefs and other issues. Cantankerous tabulation with chi-square tests and multivariate logistic regression were employed.

Results: Prevalence of emotional IPVAW was 17.5%, concrete IPAVW 23.four% and sexual IPAVW 14.vii%. Overall the prevalence of IPVAW in Nepal was 32.4%. Joint decision making for contraception, husband ' south not-controlling behavior to wives and friendly feelings were emerged as less likely to be IPVAW perpetration.

Conclusions: The findings take immense policy importance as a nationally representative study and indicating necessity of more than gender equality.

Keywords : Educational Status, Empowerment, Nepal, Chance Factors, Spouse Abuse, Women ' s Health

Introduction

Intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW) is divers equally physical, sexual or psychological impairment, including physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and decision-making caused by an intimate partner or ex-partnerane. IPAVAW is at present globally best-selling as major public health and human rights problem. Information technology has several health, family, social, and economic effects. IPVAW occurs everyday in every corner of the world irrespective of demographics such every bit faith, ethnicities and societytwo-v. It is the most widespread and ane of the most frequent forms of violence against women2.

Plethora of studies in industrialized countries have been conducted to improve understanding the context, extent and nature of IPAVW1,6. Considering high prevalence of IPAVW in the low income countries, especially in the Southeast Asia we take lack of scientific exploration of IPAVW2,7,8 . With diverse civilization and social contexts, depression income countries warrant context-dependent studies on IPAVW as such studies are non so frequent from those countriesv,6,9,10 . Nepal has also dearth of materials regarding IPVAW. A few studies are bachelor using modest sample size and mainly from areas in and effectually capital or big cities in Nepal, warranting a large scale population based report to determine the prevalence of violence confronting womenvii,viii,xi-13.

The current report has estimated the national prevalence rate of IPVAW and examines the individual level, empowerment level, family and societal level characteristics of the victims of IPAVW in Nepal.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional population based study of women of reproductive age (15-49 yrs.) using information from the Nepal demographic and wellness survey 2011 (NDHS 2011). A detail of data collection is available elsewherexiv. The survey has targeted to learn detail information on demographics, salient wellness issues of respondents and children. The current study had used relevant questionnaires related to IPVAW and other socioeconomic and demographics factors as describe beneath.

Due north east p al has 75 d i strict s. Each commune i s sub-divide d int o s chiliad alle r ad grand inistrativ e units, which are again sub-divided into ward southward i n the rural areas and sub-wards in urban areas. In the cu r rent report, those ward s in the rural areas and sub-wards in the urban areas are known as enu chiliad e r ation area (EA) . There are 804 sub-wards in urban areas and 34 267 wards in rural areas, totaling 35 071 EAs. The majority of the people reside in the rural Nepal. The EAs are not allocated proportional to their population. This is important to provide estimations at the adequate levels of statistical precision.

Sample selections were carried out in two stages. In the first stage, 289 EAs were selected using a probability-proportional-to-size strategy. In t h e se c o north d stage, 35 hou s eho l ds i n ea c h urb a n Eastward A a due north d twoscore hous e ho fifty ds in each rural E A were r a ndomly selected. In those selected households, 12 918 women aged between fifteen-49 twelvemonth were randomly identified every bit eligible for the individual interview. However, 12 674 women completed interview, resulting in a 98% response charge per unit for the whole survey.

For violence related questions World Health Organization ' s guideline was strictly followed15. Ane woman in every two households was preselected for an interview on violence. The random option of one woman from every 2d household was conducted following a simple selection. For the domestic violence questionnaire in total 4210 women were eligible while 4197 were successfully interviewed. Thirteen eligible women could not be interviewed because of absence of complete privacy as recommended by the WHO (2001)15.

Study variables

Lifetime IPAVW was consisted of emotional, physical and sexual violence. Initially each blazon of violence was measured past unlike questionnaires. Then finally the IPAVW was synthetic every bit being victimization of any type of violence1.

Emotional violence : Hubby ever did any of the following to the respondent - humiliated; threatened with impairment and insulted or made to feel bad.

Physical violence : Husband ever pushed shook or had something thrown;

Slapped; punched with fist or hitting by something harmful; kicked or dragged; strangled or burnt; threatened with knife/gun or other weapon; twisted arm or pulled hair of the respondent.

Sexual violence: Ever been physically forced into unwanted sex past married man/partner;

Always been forced into other unwanted sexual acts by husband/partner.

Independent variables were measured in 3 different strata: private level, empowerment level and family or societal level 10,xvi,17.

Individual level factors were measured past age (under 19, twenty -29, 30 – 39 and over 40 yr); Residency (rural or urban); Education (uneducated, chief, secondary and higher); Organized religion (Hindu and non-Hindu); Hubby ' s education (uneducated, chief, secondary and higher).

Empowerment factors were measured by economical, determination making on personal and family issues 10,16.

Economical empowerment was measured past current working status (Yep/no); Employment condition (all around the year, seasonal or occasional). Decision making regarding using contraception, spending respondent ' s earning, respondent ' s healthcare utilization, household buy, vising family or friends, and spending hubby ' s earning were likewise considered every bit empowerment variable as afar equally decision making is concerned. All these variables had options similar respondent could determine by herself, by jointly with husband or husband and other male person persons of the family. Two more issues like respondent tin can refuse sex to her husband (Yep/no) and respondent can ask her husband to use prophylactic (Yeah/No) were also included in the written report as empowerment variables.

Family and societal level factors were assessed by sexual activity of household head (Male/Female person); Economic condition; Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage index, Husband ' s control to respondent; Alcoholic husband (Yes/no); Family unit history of IPVAW (Yeah/no); Respondent afraid of husband (never, about of the time, sometimes); Association of women ' south group (Yeah/no); Access to radio and television plan for health (Yep/No). T h due east economical status w a s c o northward s t r u c t e d t h r ough p r i north c i p a 50 c o one thousand pon e nt a n a l y southward i s usa i ng eastward a south y - t o - c o ll ec t d a t a on t h e hous due east ho fifty d ´ s ain due east r sh i p of s e l due east c t e d economic a ss east t s. The westward eastward i gh t e d s c o re s w due east r east d i 5 i d e d i northward t o f i ve qu i n t il e southward : poo re s t , poo re r , mi dd fifty e , r i c h due east r a nd r i c h due east due south teighteen,19. Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage index was constructed to measure the socioeconomic development of the customs where belonged the respondent ' s household. The alphabetize was developed using principal component analysis (PCA) based on geographical area of household (Mount and Terai); Residency in rural or urban area; Literacy (illiterate or can read) and Beneath poverty line20,21. Scores from this alphabetize then used to categorize into two socioeconomic disadvantage categories: less disadvantage neighborhoods and more disadvantage neighborhoods21. Married man ' due south control to respondent was measured by the following options: Married man jealous if respondent talks with other men; accuses respondent of unfaithfulness; does non permit respondent to run into female friends; tries to limit respondent'south contact with family; insists on knowing respondent ' s concrete position; doesn ' t trust respondent with money 10,fourteen. A final variable was constructed from those options. Clan of women ' southward group was assessed by means of whether respondent belonged to Ama Samuha, Bachat Samuha, Mahila Samuha, or other women's group.

Statistical assay

Prevalence estimates were performed to reflect the emotional, physical, sexual violence and IPAVW in Nepal. The proportions and 10 2 test were performed to explore the cantankerous-relationships between dependent and contained variables stratified into private, empowerment and family and societal level factors. Multivariate 50 ogistic regression analysis was performed to study the potential association between IPAVW and r espondent ' s individual level, empowerment level and family and societal level factors. In the multivariate analysis, only the significant variables (by x 2 test) from all the three gene levels were included. Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS version 20.0. A significance level at P =0.05 was employed in the written report.

Ethical issues

For the household survey NDHS 2011 followed the ethical guidelines 14. Firstly, t h e trai n i n g to the interviewers was emphasized on how to enquire se n siti five e q u esti on s, e n s u re pri 5 acy, and develop ra p port b etween i north terviewer a n d resp o n d eastward n t . Rapport between t h east i north t e r v ie due west er and interviewee, co nf i d e n tiality a northward d maintaining pr i five acy were a l l very important to developing re spo nd due east northward t s ' c o nf i d ence. And then the respondent could safely s h are t h eir intimate due east xp e rie due north ces with t h e i due north ter 5 iewer. Violence questionnaire was interviewed at the cease of the whole survey questionnaire. Information technology was expected to provides time for the interviewer to develop a certain level of intimacy with the respondent so that respondent could get further boost to sharing their experiences of violence, if any. Abreast initial survey consent, further consent was obtained from the respondent for violence questionnaire. The viol e n ce questionnaire was im ple m ented o northward ly if pr i v acy cou fifty d be guaranteed . In case, if privacy could not be obtained, the interviewer had skipped the violence questionnaires. Necessary steps were taken to support and safeguard the respondents and a information brochure was provided detailing nationwide women se r vice centers.

Results

In Nepal with nationally representative samples, the prevalence of lifetime intimate partner violence against women was emotional IPVAW 17.5%, physical IPAVW 23.iv% and sexual IPAVW 14.7%. Overall the prevalence of IPVAW in Nepal is 32.four%. More than seventy% women population lived in rural Nepal. Forty percent women in Nepal were uneducated. Eighty five percent populations in Nepal were Hindu.

Private level factors

Older women had more exposure to IPVAW. Compared to secondary or higher educated women, uneducated or primary educated women had almost double prevalence of any form of IPVAW. Husbands with college pedagogy (secondary and up) were less violent to their wives (Table 1).

Empowerment level factors

For IPVAW, seasonal employed women were notably victimized along with occasional employed women. Women whose husband decided for contraception use, for visiting friends or relative were experiencing lesser proportions of whatsoever form of IPAVW compared to the women who decided by themselves. Women who decided on spending own earning or married man ' south earning were proportionally least victimized of IPVAW. Women who jointly took conclusion with husband for own healthcare utilization or large household purchase had proportionally least exposure to IPVAW. Women in Nepal who could decline sex with partner or could inquire husband for using condom had proportionally almost half victimization of IPVAW than their peers who could not (Table 2).

Family unit and social factors

Poorer women had almost two times more prevalence of IPVAW than richest women in Nepal (Table three). In the more than disadvantaged neighborhood past socioeconomic index, the women were more than exposed to IPVAW than less disadvantaged neighborhoods. Women of controlling husbands were about three to four times more exposed to any types of IPVAW than their peers of not-decision-making husbands. Women who had witnessed violence confronting female parent by father had more prevalent of IPVAW than their peers who did non witness. Women who were afraid of their married man were highest exposed to IPVAW. Women ' southward exposure to social media such as radio and television set for wellness related programme had less IPVAW prevalence than the women who did not accept such exposure to radio and television (Table 4).

Multivariate logistic regression analysis

After controlling the individual level, empowerment level and family and societal level variables, the multivariate logistic regression had indicated few significant results. Women who jointly decided for using contraception were less likely (0.186, CI. 0.065, 0.530) to exist victim of IPVAW than the women who decided past themselves. Women not controlled past husbands were less likely (0.156, CI. 0.087, 0.278) to be victimized of IPVAW than their peers with controlling husbands. Women more often than not afraid of husband were several folded more likely to experience IPVAW in their life than the women who rarely afraid of their husband.

Tabular array 1: Individual level factors in relation to intimate partner violence against women

Tabular array two: Empowerment factors in relation to intimate partner violence against women

Table 3: Family and social factors in relation to intimate partner violence against women (IPVAW)

Table 4: Multivariate analysis of IPAVW past individual, empowerment, family and social factors (IPVAW)

Variables	ORs	95% CI	P value
Individual level factors
Historic period group (twelvemonth)
<nineteen	0.060	0.001, 2.951	0.157
20-29	ane.619	0.703, 3.730	0.258
30-39	1.640	0.740, 3.635	0.223
≥ xl	i.000
Education
No pedagogy	1.542	0.372, 6.399	0.551
Primary	2.163	0.552, 8.477	0.268
Secondary	1.649	0.483, 5.624	0.425
Higher	1.000
Married man's education
No pedagogy	1.177	0.315, four.397	0.808
Primary	1.139	0.329, three.942	0.837
Secondary	0.855	0.308, 2.371	0.763
Higher	1.000
Empowerment factors
Employment status
All year	0.790	0.296, 2.111	0.639
Seasonal	0.813	0.277, 2.383	0.706
Occasional	1.000
Decision making for contraception utilize
Respondent	one.000
Jointly	0.186	0.065, 0.530	0.002
Hubby/other person	0.425	0.214, 0.845	0.015
Decision making for spending respondent'due south earning
Respondent	ane.000
Jointly	ane.299	0.666, 2.536	0.639
Husband/other person	0.430	0.107, ane.733	0.706
Decision making for spending husband ' s earning
Respondent
Jointly	0.720	0.340, one.522	0.390
Hubby	0.989	0.392, 2.491	0.981
Decision making for respondent's healthcare
Respondent	one.000
Jointly	0.620	0.305, i.263	0.390
Hubby/ other person	0.749	0.341, 1.645	0.981
Decision making for visiting friends/relatives
Respondent	one.000
Jointly	0.620	0.305, ane.263	0.188
Husband/other person	0.749	0.341, i.645	0.472
Respondent can pass up sexual practice
No	1.106	0.194, half-dozen.320	0.910
Yes	1.000
Respondent tin ask to use condom
No	ane.803	0.824, iii.942	0.140
Yep	1.000
Family and social factors
Neighbourhood socioeconomic disadvantage
Less disadvantage	0.536	0.069, iv.154	0.551
More disadvantage	1.000
Economic status
Poorest	five.098	1.419, eighteen.320	0.013
Poorer	three.635	one.235, x.702	0.019
Centre	3.373	1.344, 8.469	0.010
Richer	2.728	1.262, 5.896	0.011
1.000	i.000
Husband controls respondent
No	0.156	0.087, 0.278	0.000
Yes	i.000
Husband is alcoholic
No	0.682	0.370, 1.257	0.220
Yes	1.000
History of IPVAW
No	0.605	0.151, ii.420	0.477
Yes	one.445	0.334, 6.256	0.622
Don't know	1.000
Heard health program in radio
No	1.182	0.611, 2.285	0.620
Yes	1.000
Heard health program in television
No	0.718	0.360, 1.431	0.346
Yep	one.000
Afraid of husband
Never agape	0.425	0.245, 0.739	0.002
Most of the time	41.783	four.553, 383.468	0.001
Sometimes	ane.000
Health programme exposure to radio
No	1.182	0.611, 2.285	0.620
Yes	1.000
Wellness program exposure to television
No	0.718	0.360, 1.431	0.346
Yes	1.000

Word

The current study is a nationally representative written report for determining IPVAW prevalence in Nepal. IPVAW prevalence (always) amidst women of reproductive age in Nepal was 32% while, emotional IPVAW was 17.5%, physical IPAVW 23.iv% and sexual IPAVW xiv.vii%. Using nationally representative samples for estimating national prevalence is ane of the most important tasks for the researchers and policy makers 1. Therefore the electric current study has an important policy importance determining the IPVAW prevalence in Nepal.

National prevalence of IPVAW indicated by the current study is lower than small scale studieseight,eleven,13. Lifetime sexual violence by husbands (14.7%) in this report is lower than previous study 31 -46% viii. Physical violence by husbands (23.4%) in the electric current written report is almost same as other pocket-size-scale study from Nepal (25.three%) 22. Findings of study are very much like to other studies in low income countriessix,viii,ix,ten,11,xiii,16. Teaching has emerged as protective factor as college educated women take less prevalence of IPVAW and higher educated husbands accept constituted bottom percentage of perpetrators. Nevertheless, this finding is prevalent in bi-variate analyses and not in multi-variate analyses. Joint conclusion making is ever an important pre-condition for better spousal agreement ii,3,ten. The current report indicates that this is likewise a vital pre-condition for enhancing protection against IPVAW in Nepal. Married man ' due south controlling behavior toward his wife is highly responsible for IPVAW2. The electric current study in Nepal has advocated the same story. The report has for the first time indicated that women by and large afraid of husbands accept more IPVAW than their peers who are not and so much afraid. Moreover, logically we can explicate that as this is dealing with IPVAW e'er in marital life, the victims are by and large afraid of husbands, supporting the theory of ' learned helplessness '3. Seasonal employment has revealed as a hazard factor of IPVAW. Husbands may expect more earnings from the respondents or may expect more family duty during occupied time of seasonal job. Too, may exist in the lite of ' feminism theory ' the husbands could endeavor to dominate which is not possible during seasonal works. Bivariate analyses have indicated that women ' s autonomy and empowerment are effective for preventing IPVAW.

The report is a cross-exclusive population based written report. Therefore assigning causality is a problem similar other cross-sectional study. This is dealing with IPVAW e'er occurred in marital life. The prevalence of IPVAW in the study is lower than other small scale studies in Nepal 8,11,13. The reason may be embedded in the questionnaires. The current study has used most normally used IPVAW questionnaire developed from Strauss conflict tactics scale and widely used in all DHS studies 23. Older age could provide more prevalence. At the same time older age could accept recall biases. A large report using qualitative or mixed method or longitudinal studies are warranted to amend explore the causes and victims view of the trouble.

This report has some limitations, every bit few important variables such as education, economic status are not meaning in the adjusted analysis one,five . On the other manus the study using nationally representative sample could advise to enhance joint decision making trend amongst spouses in Nepal. Furthermore, less control of wives could be publicized/ highlighted for violence prevention campaign. Women are important role of the marital life. When the wife afraid of married man the relationship seems to be hierarchical where the husband is the boss.

Conclusions

The findings have immense policy importance as a nationally representative report. Policy makers should have immediate action to break s hierarchical barriers betwixt spouses and promote gender equality movement in Nepal. At the same time adequate emphasize on education, especially among women should be prioritized.

Acknowledgments

Nosotros acknowledge Measures DHS and their staff for collecting and providing us the data.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have zippo to declare.

References

1. W orld Health O r ganization. Westward orld written report on v iolence and health . Geneva: WHO; 2002.
2. Dalal K, Lindqvist K. A National report of the prevalence and correlates of domestic violence amidst women in India. Asia Pac J Public Health . 2012;24(two):265-277.
3. Dala l K . Cause due south an d consequence s o f five iolenc e agains t chil d labo r an d west ome n i n developin thousand countries . Stockholm : Karolinsk a Institute ; 2008.
4. Koeni chiliad MA , Stephenso northward R , Ahme d Due south , Jejeebho y SJ , Campbel 50 J . Individua 50 an d contextua fifty determi nants of domestic violence in N Republic of india. Am J Public Health . 2006;96:132-138.
5. W orl d Healt h O r ganization . WH O multi-countr y stud y o northward w omen ' s healt h an d domesti c v iolenc east agains t w omen : initia fifty consequence s o due north p r evalence , healt h issue s an d w omen ' s response s . Geneva : WHO ; 2005.
6. Garcia-Moreno C, Jansen H, Ellsbe r thou M, Heise L , Watts CH . WHO Multi-state Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence against Women Study Team . Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi country study on women ' southward health and domestic violence. Lancet. 2006;368:1260-1269.
7. Dalal K, Gifford M, Lee MS. Male adolescents' attitudes toward wife beating: a multi-country written report in South Asia. J Adolesc Health . 2012;50(5):437-442.
8. Puri G , Frost Thousand , Tamang J , Lamichhane P , Shah I . The prevalence and determinants of sexual violence against young married women by husbands in rural Nepal. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:291.
9. Dalal K, Rahman F, Jansson B. Wife abuse in rural Bangladesh . J Biosoc Sci. 2009;41:561-573.
10. Lawoko Southward, Dalal Chiliad, Jiayou Fifty, Jansson B. Social inequality in intimate partner violence: a study of women in Kenya. Violence Vict. 2007;22:124-136.
11. Joshiro A, Poudyal AK, Poudel KC, Jimba M, Hokama T. Intimate partner violence amidst general and urban poor populations in Kathmandu, Nepal. J Interpers Violence. 2011;26(10):2073-2092.
12. UNICEF. Domestic violence against women and girl . Florence: Innocenti Digest; 2000.
13. Khatri DB. Determinants of Intimate Partner Violence confronting Women in Pokhara, Nepal. SOSCBAHA website; 2013 [cited 13 May, 2013]; Available from:

http://www.soscbaha.org/briefing-2013/401-dhruba-bahadur-khatri.html

14. Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP) [Nepal], New ERA, and ICF International Inc. Nepal Demographic and Health Survey 2011 . Kathmandu: MOHP; 2012.
15. World Health Organization. Putting women first: upstanding and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women. Geneva: WHO; 2001.
16. Dalal K. Does economical empowerment protect women from intimate partner violence? J Inj Violence Res. 2011;3(i):35-44.
17. Uthman OA, Moradi T, Lawoko Southward. Are private and community acceptance and witnessing of intimate partner violence related to its occurrence? Multilevel structural equation model. PLoS One . 2011;6(12):e27738.
18. Gw a t k i due north D R , R u t s t e i n S , J ohnson K, South u lim a due north East, W a gs t a f f A, A m ou z ou A. S o c i o- ec ono mi c d i f f ere n ce s i n h ea lt h, nu t r iti on a nd popu l a ti on. West a sh i ng t on D C : The Due west o r l d B a nk; 2007.
19. Vaessen 1000. A due south e mi a nnu a l n due east ws l e tt due east r of t h e d e thou og ra ph i c a nd h ea l t h due south u r 5 e y s p r o j ec t . DH S + D im e ns i ons. 2002;4(2):ane-12.
20. Vyas South, Thousand umaran a ya chiliad e L. Const r ucting socio-economical status indices: h o w to use principal components ana l ysis. Health P olicy Plan . 2006;21(vi):459-468.
21. Aremu O, Lawoko South, Dalal 1000.Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage individual w ealth status and patterns of cafeteria v eastward r y ca r e utilization in Nigeria: a chiliad ultil e five el disc r ete choice ana fifty ysis. Int J West omen ' due south Health. 2011;3:167-174.
22. Lamichhane P , Puri M , Tamang J , Dulal B . Women'southward status and violence confronting young married women in rural Nepal. BMC Womens Wellness . 2011;11:19.
23. Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily confli c t and violen c e. The disharmonize tactic sca l es . In : Straus MA, Gelles RJ, editors. Concrete violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations t o vio fifty ence in 8145 familie s , New Jerse y : Transaction Publishers; 1990. pp 29-47.

JRHS Part:

School of Public Wellness, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Shaheed Fahmideh Ave. Hamadan, Islamic Commonwealth of Iran

Postal code: 6517838695, PO box: 65175-4171

Tel: +98 81 38380292, Fax: +98 81 38380509

E-mail service: jrhs@umsha.ac.ir

andrewsthoubt.blogspot.com

Source: http://jrhs.umsha.ac.ir/index.php/JRHS/article/view/1627/html

Share this post