Trauma bonding: why it is hard to leave an abusive relationship and how to get out safely

Trauma bonding is a term for an emotional attachment between someone who abuses and the person they abuse (Casassa et al., 2022). It is used as one explanation of why many people with abusive partners do not end the relationship (Shaughnessy et al., 2023). The starting point usually cited is a 1981 theory by Dutton and Painter, which held that the victim’s romantic attachment grows out of a recurring, cyclical pattern of abuse (Lesiak & Gelsthorpe, 2026).

Trauma bonding is not, however, a diagnosis with diagnostic criteria. What exists are a few questionnaires used in research (Graham et al., 1995; Chenneville et al., 2024), and the similar term “Stockholm syndrome” has been used to describe a “hypothetical phenomenon” of survivors forming strong attachments to their abuser (Bailey et al., 2023). So rather than judging whether you “have” a trauma bond, this guide sets out, from research and official sources, why abusive relationships are hard to leave and how to get out safely.

Abuse is not only hitting. The World Health Organization defines intimate partner violence as behaviour by a current or former partner that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, and counts controlling behaviours among it (WHO, 2026). The NHS says there are different kinds of abuse, but it is always about having power and control over you (NHS, 2026). In Korea, in a 2024 survey of 7,027 women aged 19 or over, 19.2% said they had experienced physical, sexual, emotional or economic violence or control from an intimate partner at least once in their lives (KWDI, 2025).

A 1993 test of the theory interviewed and surveyed 75 women who had recently left abusive relationships (50 of them physically abused), right after they left and again 6 months later. The more extreme the intermittent abuse and the greater the power imbalance, the stronger their attachment to the former partner, and total abuse, intermittency and power differences accounted for 55% of the variance in attachment at 6 months. Even so, attachment fell by about 27% over those 6 months (Dutton & Painter, 1993). These are correlations in one group of women who had already left, so they do not prove that intermittent abuse creates attachment.

Later research is limited. In 1995, a research questionnaire was built with college women in heterosexual dating relationships (Graham et al., 1995), and a newer scale, validated with young adults in the United States, was also validated with 538 people aged 18 to 29 in Kenya (Chenneville et al., 2024). Its authors note that few validated measures exist and that research across cultures is scarce (Chenneville et al., 2025). A 2023 study of 354 people in abusive relationships, which described itself as the first to test a complex model of risk factors, found higher trauma-bonding scores with childhood maltreatment and insecure attachment, and higher scores went with more PTSD symptoms (Shaughnessy et al., 2023).

Results also conflict. In a survey of 345 women who had come to two support services in Nigeria, how much abuse they had suffered was not significantly linked with their trauma-bonding scores, while higher empathy went with higher scores (Effiong et al., 2022). That does not fit the theory’s core claim that abuse creates the bond. A scoping review of 15 articles on sex trafficking found that no article showed how such bonds could be broken and replaced with healthy attachments (Casassa et al., 2022). So there is no tested method for “breaking a trauma bond” yet, and the rest of this guide rests on evidence about safety, support and treatment.

A UK study that interviewed 18 women who had experienced repeated abuse argued that abusers deliberately build emotional entrapment through grooming, sharing their own traumas, and alternating cruelty with care, and that current models understate the abuser’s role, which risks blaming victims. It only interviewed women who were financially independent and said they stayed for love alone, though (Lesiak & Gelsthorpe, 2026). In short, most trauma-bonding studies are small and taken at a single point in time, and the idea that intermittent abuse creates attachment has findings both for and against it.

“Stockholm syndrome” describes the positive bond some kidnap victims develop with their captor. A systematic review on it found only 12 papers, mostly case reports; no validated diagnostic criteria had been described, and the diagnosis is not in any international classification system (Namnyak et al., 2008). More recently, researchers have proposed replacing it with “appeasement”, a survival strategy (Bailey et al., 2023).

“Codependency” is a contested idea applied to a broad range of relationship difficulties. A review of 30 studies found it consistently linked with emotional distress, a disrupted sense of identity and difficulties in relationships, but noted that it lacks formal diagnostic criteria and remains conceptually unclear (Molina et al., 2026). Losing yourself in meeting other people’s expectations is covered in People-pleasing. “Love addiction” has no agreed definition either; in a meta-analysis of 15 of 27 studies (3,628 people) it tended to go with anxious attachment (correlation 0.39), but it is not a concept about abuse (Cavalli et al., 2025).

Anxious attachment is not the same thing as trauma bonding either. In a meta-analysis of 34 studies, both attachment anxiety and attachment avoidance were linked with being a victim of partner violence (Stefania et al., 2023), and in another of 33 studies, anxious, avoidant and disorganised attachment were linked with both being a victim and being a perpetrator of physical violence, while secure attachment went with less of both (Spencer et al., 2021). Most of these studies looked at one point in time, so attachment may also have become insecure after the abuse. Your attachment style is not the reason you were abused.

Conflict and violence are different too. The French government explains that in a couple’s disputes two points of view meet as equals and negotiation is possible, whereas in violence the aggressor sets up a relationship of domination and takes power over the victim; it stresses that you are not responsible for your partner’s violence, which is the aggressor’s responsibility alone (French Government, n.d.). If someone keeps saying things that make you doubt your memory and judgement, see the gaslighting guide as well.

People often ask why someone does not leave a violent partner. According to a news report on Korea’s 2025 domestic violence survey, the share who said it is hard to understand why victims do not leave a violent spouse rose from 41.2% to 43.8% (Newsis, 2026). Yet the reasons research and official sources point to are mostly practical. The US National Domestic Violence Hotline explains that abuse is about power and control, and lists fear of what will happen if the person leaves, financial dependence on the abusive partner, and the hope that the partner will return to who they once were. It adds that experiencing abuse and feeling genuine care for a partner who is causing harm are not mutually exclusive (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2025a).

The Japanese government gives similar reasons: a strong fear of being killed if one runs away, the thought that the partner may change one day, the difficulty of living without the partner’s income, and worries about the children’s safety and schooling (Gender Equality Bureau, n.d.a). In a 2023 Japanese government survey, of 462 people who had been harmed by a spouse, 40.9% had wanted to separate but did not. Among those 189 people, the most common reasons were the children (71.4%) and financial worries (46.0%), and for men, the next most common reason after the children was “I thought my partner might change” (24.1%) (Gender Equality Bureau, 2024).

Staying can also be a way of staying safe. UK government guidance explains that victims may stay in a relationship to manage their own risk, or the risk to others, when they believe that leaving could put them, their children or their wider family in more danger (Home Office, 2023). A study of intake interviews at a shelter found that women with poorer economic alternatives and more invested in their relationships, for example by being married, felt more committed to them, and that this commitment clearly separated the women who went back to their partners right after leaving the shelter from those who did not (Rusbult & Martz, 1995). In a survey of 258 Israeli women who had left violent partners, only income and having become hyper-sensitive to the partner’s feelings and needs independently explained how likely they thought they were to go back (Lahav, 2023).

Leaving is more a process than a single decision. A review of research describes how abused women typically go through several shifts in their thinking about the abuse before leaving for good (Anderson & Saunders, 2003). People often say that it takes “7 attempts on average” to leave, but the US Hotline page that repeats this cites no study for it (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2025b), and none of the studies we looked at for this guide reports such a number. The obstacles to getting help are not only inside the person either. A review of 29 US studies found six barriers: not knowing about help, difficulty reaching it, fear of what disclosure would bring, lack of money and other resources, personal barriers, and systems that failed people; the authors called for better access to services, particularly for non-English speakers, immigrants and refugees, people with disabilities, men and LGBTQIA people (Robinson et al., 2021).

Control shows up as a pattern rather than a single incident. UK government guidance gives examples such as monitoring someone’s daily activities and making them account for their time; dictating what they can wear and eat, where they sleep, who they meet and where they work; and isolating them from family, friends and colleagues and intercepting their messages or calls. It also includes using digital devices to monitor someone, such as restricting and checking phone use, needing to know account passwords and using location tracking (Home Office, 2023). In England and Wales, repeated controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship is a criminal offence when it makes the other person fear violence on at least two occasions, or causes serious alarm or distress that has a substantial effect on their day-to-day life (UK Parliament, 2015).

The NHS suggests questions to ask yourself. Does your partner isolate you from your family and friends? Control your money, or not give you enough to buy food or other essentials? Monitor your social media, share photos or videos of you without your consent, or use GPS locators to know where you are? Have you ever changed your behaviour because you are afraid of what your partner might do (NHS, 2026)? In Korea, the share of women who had experienced emotional violence from an intimate partner in the past year (1.8%) was twice that for physical violence (0.9%) (KWDI, 2025). In a 2023 Japanese government survey, 12.6% of 462 people who had been harmed by a spouse had felt their life was in danger: 15.6% of women and 7.5% of men (Gender Equality Bureau, 2024).

Threats are a form of control too. UK government guidance lists threatening suicide as a way of controlling the victim, especially to stop them leaving (Home Office, 2023), and the French government gives “he threatens to kill himself if I leave him” as an example of violence (French Government, n.d.). Hearing this can be frightening and leave you feeling guilty, but your partner’s actions are not your responsibility. If your partner seems to be in danger right now, do not handle it alone: contact your local emergency services. If things feel like too much for you, or you have thoughts of hurting yourself, call or text 988 in the US and Canada, call Samaritans on 116 123 in the UK and Ireland, or find a line at findahelpline.com elsewhere.

Some signs call for particular care. A meta-analysis of 17 studies suggests that the strongest risk factors for intimate partner homicide are the perpetrator having direct access to a gun, previous non-fatal strangulation, previous rape of the victim, previous threats with a weapon, controlling behaviour, and previous threats to harm the victim (Spencer & Stith, 2020). If any of these are present, do not weigh the situation alone; make a safety plan with the police or a specialist service. This list is not a way to diagnose your partner. The Japanese government notes that there is no fixed type of person who is violent, and that it is unrelated to age, education, occupation or income (Gender Equality Bureau, n.d.a).

The time of separating can be the more dangerous one. UK government guidance says the period after separation carries a high risk of violence for victims, including children, and that in a review of domestic-abuse-related deaths from April 2021 to March 2022, the relationship had recently ended, or there had been a threat of it ending, before the homicide in 19% of intimate partner cases (Home Office, 2023). In Korea’s 2025 domestic violence survey of 9,077 adults aged 19 or over, 50.0% of the 541 people who had divorced, separated or ended cohabitation (59.6% of women, 40.0% of men) had experienced violence around the break-up (MOGEF, 2026; Newsis, 2026). The ministry described this as more than three times the lifetime rate of 14.4%, but the two rates are based on different groups, so it does not mean that separating triples the risk. A study in 11 US cities also found that separation, especially from a controlling partner, was a risk factor for women in abusive relationships being killed (Campbell et al., 2003).

That is why a plan to leave is best made with a specialist service rather than alone. The US National Domestic Violence Hotline says its advocates are available 24/7 by phone or chat to talk through your situation and help create a personalised safety plan (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). The NHS advises that if you are thinking of leaving, you should be careful who you tell, and that it is important the person abusing you does not know where you are going (NHS, 2026). Internet use can be monitored and is impossible to erase completely (National Domestic Violence Hotline, n.d.). General advice includes leaving copies of ID, bank details, important documents and records with someone you trust, deciding where you would go and whom you would contact in an emergency, and not confronting your partner alone if they could be dangerous.

Where there is abuse, couples counselling with your partner is not the answer either. The US Hotline does not encourage anyone in an abusive relationship to seek counselling with their partner, because abuse is not a relationship problem and counselling cannot fix the unequal power that marks an abusive relationship (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2022). Control and coercion can continue, and often increase, after a relationship ends (Home Office, 2023), so cutting off contact does not by itself make you safe. If contact continues because of children or court proceedings, look into legal protection with a specialist service.

Right after leaving, things can feel harder. A review of the research explains the seemingly paradoxical finding that some women just out of an abusive relationship have greater psychological difficulties than those still in it as part of an ongoing stress process (Anderson & Saunders, 2003). Feeling worse does not mean that leaving was the wrong decision. In immediate danger, call your local emergency number. US: National Domestic Violence Hotline 1-800-799-7233 · UK: National Domestic Abuse Helpline 0808 2000 247.

In Korea, the Women’s Emergency Line 1366 offers initial counselling and emergency rescue and protection, 365 days a year and 24 hours a day, to any victim of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking and other violence, men and women alike. You can call 1366 without an area code, or reach it through the KakaoTalk channel “women1366” or its online counselling site. In 2024, 1366 handled about 293,000 counselling cases for violence, 11,338 of them for dating violence, and 6.3% of all cases came from men (MOGEF, 2025). There are also domestic violence counselling centres, shelters and free legal aid (MOGEF, n.d.a), and Sunflower Centres provide counselling, medical, legal and psychological support in one place, around the clock, including for victims of domestic violence (MOGEF, n.d.b).

There are lines in other countries too. In Japan, dialling #8008 (DV Sōdan Navi) connects you to the nearest spousal violence counselling and support centre; normal call charges apply and calls are taken only during each centre’s hours (Gender Equality Bureau, n.d.b). DV Sōdan Plus (0120-279-889) answers by phone 24 hours a day and also takes calls from men (Cabinet Office, n.d.). In the UK, the National Domestic Abuse Helpline (0808 2000 247) is free and confidential, 24 hours a day (Refuge, n.d.), and in France, 3919 is anonymous, free and open 24 hours a day, though it is not an emergency number (Service Public, 2026). In the US, the National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-7233.

If you are supporting someone, respect their decisions rather than pushing them to end the relationship. The NHS advises not telling them to leave the relationship or leave home if they are not ready, because that is their decision (NHS, 2026). The US Hotline says that, whatever the circumstances, survivors deserve to be supported in their decision-making and empowered to reclaim control over their own lives (National Domestic Violence Hotline, 2025a). Men experience abuse too: in England and Wales, an estimated 9.1% of women and 6.5% of men aged 16 or over experienced domestic abuse in the past year (ONS, 2025).

Support can help recovery. A Cochrane review of 33 trials (5,517 women) of psychological therapies for women who had experienced intimate partner violence found that therapy probably reduced depression slightly (4 trials, 600 women, effect size 0.24, moderate certainty) and may reduce anxiety (4 trials, 158 women, low certainty), while it was unclear whether it made a difference to PTSD symptoms or to being exposed to violence again. The authors concluded that therapy probably improves emotional health, but that it is unclear whether it meets women’s ongoing needs for safety and support (Hameed et al., 2020). Treatment goes alongside a safety plan and support, not instead of them.

Intimate partner violence can lead to depression, post-traumatic stress, anxiety disorders, sleep difficulties, alcohol use disorders and suicide attempts (WHO, 2026). A review of 16 longitudinal studies (36,163 people) found clear evidence that, for women, violence was followed by new depressive symptoms, as well as a link in the reverse direction from depressive symptoms to later violence, and that violence was also linked with new suicide attempts (Devries et al., 2013). If nightmares, flashbacks or constant alertness go on, see the trauma and PTSD guide. If things feel like too much right now, or you have thoughts of hurting yourself, call or text 988 in the US and Canada, call Samaritans on 116 123 in the UK and Ireland, or find a line at findahelpline.com elsewhere. If you are in immediate danger, contact your local emergency services.

Q. If I know I am being hurt and still cannot leave, is it because I am weak? A. No. Practical reasons such as fear, children and money weigh heavily (Gender Equality Bureau, n.d.a, 2024), and staying can be a way of managing risk (Home Office, 2023). Responsibility for violence lies only with the person who commits it (French Government, n.d.).

Q. Is trauma bonding a diagnosis? Can a test tell me if I have it? A. It is not a diagnosis with diagnostic criteria; there are only questionnaires used in research (Graham et al., 1995; Chenneville et al., 2024). mind.io’s attachment style test looks at how you draw close and pull away in relationships; it does not detect trauma bonding or abuse.

Q. If they love me, won’t they change in the end? A. Promising never to do it again after violence is one of the examples of violence the French government gives (French Government, n.d.). Research on programmes for people who are violent is covered in how to manage anger. You do not have to wait in danger for someone to change.

Q. Am I safe as soon as I leave? A. Not necessarily. The time around a separation can bring a higher risk of violence (Home Office, 2023; MOGEF, 2026). Make your plan to leave with a specialist service, such as a domestic abuse helpline.

Q. If they don’t hit me, is it still abuse? A. Yes. Isolating you from family and friends, controlling money, monitoring and threats are abuse too (NHS, 2026). In England and Wales, repeated control is a crime even without physical violence (UK Parliament, 2015), and in Korea, emotional violence from a partner in the past year was twice as common as physical violence (KWDI, 2025).

Q. My partner says they will kill themselves if I leave, and I feel so overwhelmed that I want to disappear. A. Please do not carry this alone. Reach out to a crisis line right away: call or text 988 in the US and Canada, call Samaritans on 116 123 in the UK and Ireland, or find a line at findahelpline.com elsewhere. If you or your partner are in immediate danger, contact your local emergency services; for domestic abuse advice, call the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-7233) in the US or the National Domestic Abuse Helpline (0808 2000 247) in the UK.

References: Casassa, K., Knight, L., & Mengo, C. (2022), Trauma bonding perspectives from service providers and survivors of sex trafficking: A scoping review, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(3), 969-984, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020985542; Shaughnessy, E. V., Simons, R. M., Simons, J. S., & Freeman, H. (2023), Risk factors for traumatic bonding and associations with PTSD symptoms: A moderated mediation, Child Abuse & Neglect, 144, 106390, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106390; Lesiak, M., & Gelsthorpe, L. (2026), The invisible abuser: Attachment, victimization, and perpetrator perception in repeat abuse, Violence Against Women, 32(11), 4195-4214, https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012251379423; Graham, D. L. R., Rawlings, E. I., Ihms, K., Latimer, D., Foliano, J., Thompson, A., et al. (1995), A scale for identifying “Stockholm syndrome” reactions in young dating women: Factor structure, reliability, and validity, Violence and Victims, 10(1), 3-22, https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.10.1.3; Chenneville, T., Reid, J. A., Wasilewski, S., & Adeli, S. (2024), Validation of the Trauma Bonding Scale for Adults© in Kenya, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39(9-10), 2148-2164, https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231215015; Bailey, R., Dugard, J., Smith, S. F., & Porges, S. W. (2023), Appeasement: Replacing Stockholm syndrome as a definition of a survival strategy, European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 14(1), 2161038, https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2022.2161038; World Health Organization (WHO) (2026), Violence against women [fact sheet], https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/violence-against-women; NHS (2026), Domestic violence and abuse: getting help, https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/getting-help-for-domestic-violence/; Korean Women’s Development Institute (KWDI) (2025), One in five women has experienced violence in an intimate relationship; dating-violence victimisation also rising [in Korean], press release, 1 December 2025, https://www.kwdi.re.kr/plaza/bodoView.do?p=1&idx=133523; Dutton, D. G., & Painter, S. (1993), Emotional attachments in abusive relationships: A test of traumatic bonding theory, Violence and Victims, 8(2), 105-120, https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.8.2.105; Chenneville, T., Bilali, K., Wasilewski, S., & Reid, J. (2025), Similarities and differences in trauma bonding among young adults in the U.S. and Kenya: Implications for forensic assessment, Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 43(4), 374-384, https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2723; Effiong, J. E., Ibeagha, P. N., & Iorfa, S. K. (2022), Traumatic bonding in victims of intimate partner violence is intensified via empathy, Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(12), 3619-3637, https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075221106237; Namnyak, M., Tufton, N., Szekely, R., Toal, M., Worboys, S., & Sampson, E. L. (2008), “Stockholm syndrome”: Psychiatric diagnosis or urban myth?, Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 117(1), 4-11, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.2007.01112.x; Molina, E., Taiwo, A., & Grey, B. (2026), Co-dependency revisited: An integrative review of conceptualisations and mental health outcomes, Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 33(2), e70265, https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.70265; Cavalli, R. G., Feeney, J., Rogier, G., & Velotti, P. (2025), Conceptualizing love addiction within the attachment perspective: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 14(2), 611-629, https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.2025.00031; Stefania, C., Rogier, G., Beomonte Zobel, S., & Velotti, P. (2023), The relation of anxiety and avoidance dimensions of attachment to intimate partner violence: A meta-analysis about victims, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(2), 1047-1062, https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211050595; Spencer, C. M., Keilholtz, B. M., & Stith, S. M. (2021), The association between attachment styles and physical intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization: A meta-analysis, Family Process, 60(1), 270-284, https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12545; French Government (n.d.), Violences au sein du couple [Violence in couples, in French], arretonslesviolences.gouv.fr, https://arretonslesviolences.gouv.fr/besoin-d-aide/violences-au-sein-du-couple; Newsis (2026), Three in ten women who separated experienced stalking around the break-up, 1.5 times the rate for men [in Korean], 30 July 2026, https://mobile.newsis.com/view/NISX20260730_0003729777; National Domestic Violence Hotline (2025a), Why people stay in an abusive relationship, updated 6 March 2025, https://www.thehotline.org/support-others/why-people-stay-in-an-abusive-relationship/; Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office (n.d.a), What is domestic violence: characteristics of the violence [in Japanese], https://www.gender.go.jp/policy/no_violence/e-vaw/dv/04.html; Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office (2024), Survey on violence between men and women (fiscal 2023) [in Japanese], https://www.gender.go.jp/policy/no_violence/e-vaw/chousa/r05_boryoku_cyousa.html; Home Office (2023), Controlling or coercive behaviour: statutory guidance framework (England and Wales), updated 27 July 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework/controlling-or-coercive-behaviour-statutory-guidance-framework-accessible; Rusbult, C. E., & Martz, J. M. (1995), Remaining in an abusive relationship: An investment model analysis of nonvoluntary dependence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6), 558-571, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295216002; Lahav, Y. (2023), Hyper-sensitivity to the perpetrator and the likelihood of returning to abusive relationships, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1-2), NP1815-NP1841, https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221092075; Anderson, D. K., & Saunders, D. G. (2003), Leaving an abusive partner: An empirical review of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 4(2), 163-191, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838002250769; National Domestic Violence Hotline (2025b), 50 obstacles to leaving, updated 6 March 2025, https://www.thehotline.org/resources/50-obstacles-to-leaving/; Robinson, S. R., Ravi, K., & Voth Schrag, R. J. (2021), A systematic review of barriers to formal help seeking for adult survivors of IPV in the United States, 2005-2019, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 22(5), 1279-1295, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838020916254; UK Parliament (2015), Serious Crime Act 2015, section 76: controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/section/76; Spencer, C. M., & Stith, S. M. (2020), Risk factors for male perpetration and female victimization of intimate partner homicide: A meta-analysis, Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21(3), 527-540, https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018781101; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) (2026), Results of the 2025 Domestic Violence Survey [in Korean], press release, 30 July 2026, https://www.mogef.go.kr/nw/rpd/nw_rpd_s001d.do?mid=news405&bbtSn=711237; Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., et al. (2003), Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study, American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089-1097, https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.93.7.1089; National Domestic Violence Hotline (n.d.), Plan for safety, https://www.thehotline.org/plan-for-safety/; National Domestic Violence Hotline (2022), Should I go to couples therapy with my abusive partner?, updated 14 April 2022, https://www.thehotline.org/resources/should-i-go-to-couples-therapy-with-my-abusive-partner/; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) (2025), Women’s Emergency Line 1366 handled 290,000 violence counselling cases in 2024 [in Korean], press release, 28 April 2025, https://www.mogef.go.kr/nw/rpd/nw_rpd_s001d.do?mid=news405&bbtSn=710490; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) (n.d.a), Prevention of domestic (dating) violence and victim support [in Korean], https://www.mogef.go.kr/sp/hrp/sp_hrp_f004.do; Ministry of Gender Equality and Family (MOGEF) (n.d.b), Sunflower Centres: Integrated support centres for victims of sexual violence [in Korean], https://www.mogef.go.kr/sp/hrp/sp_hrp_f011.do; Gender Equality Bureau, Cabinet Office (n.d.b), Spousal violence counselling and support centres [in Japanese], https://www.gender.go.jp/policy/no_violence/e-vaw/soudankikan/01.html; Cabinet Office (n.d.), DV Sōdan Plus [in Japanese], https://soudanplus.jp/; Refuge (n.d.), National Domestic Abuse Helpline, https://www.nationaldahelpline.org.uk/; Service Public (2026), Violences conjugales [Domestic violence, in French], checked 1 April 2026, https://www.service-public.gouv.fr/particuliers/vosdroits/F12544; Office for National Statistics (ONS) (2025), Domestic abuse in England and Wales overview: November 2025, https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabuseinenglandandwalesoverview/november2025; Hameed, M., O’Doherty, L., Gilchrist, G., Tirado-Muñoz, J., Taft, A., Chondros, P., et al. (2020), Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2020(7), CD013017, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013017.pub2; Devries, K. M., Mak, J. Y., Bacchus, L. J., Child, J. C., Falder, G., Petzold, M., et al. (2013), Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: A systematic review of longitudinal studies, PLoS Medicine, 10(5), e1001439, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001439