The impact of intimate partner violence on victims’ work, health, and wellbeing in OECD countries (2014–2025): A descriptive systematic review

1 Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious social and public health issue that causes physical and psychological suffering for individuals and families and has broader negative impacts on society. Approximately 27% of women aged 15–49 worldwide have experienced physical and/or sexual violence in a close relationship at some point in their lives. The extent of IPV from a global perspective varies across countries, with women in low-income countries being particularly affected [1]. There are no global statistics on men’s exposure to IPV. However, it is estimated that one in ten men in the United States will be psychologically or sexually abused by someone in an intimate relationship at some point in their lives [2]. In Sweden, a survey found that 20% of women and 10% of men were estimated to have been exposed to IPV in adulthood [3]. This means that many people have met or worked with someone during their working life who is, or has been, a victim of IPV. No legislation compels employers to investigate whether an employee is exposed to violence in a close relationship. Yet it is important from a work environment perspective that managers, occupational health services, and human resources (HR) actively ask about exposure to violence and have preparedness and are coordinated on how to support employees who are exposed to IPV at home or in the workplace [4].

IPV is defined as interpersonal violence directed at individuals, which refers to behaviours within an intimate relationship that result in physical, psychological, or sexual harm. It includes acts, such as physical aggression, psychological abuse, sexual coercion, or controlling behaviours, involves violence by either a current or a former partner [5], and consists of acts of violence that escalate and become more severe over time. As violence often occurs at home, it can be difficult for outsiders to detect [6].

A Mexican study, for instance [7], investigated the extent and nature of Mexican men’s work-related violence against their partners. The study consisted of 100 men who were part of an intervention programme for perpetrators of violence. Forty-two per cent of the sample reported fighting with their partners/ex-partners on the phone while they were at work. More than a quarter reported work-related violent behaviours that involved interfering with their partner’s ability to go to work. Of the sample, 27% disturbed their partner’s sleep and 25% told their female partner to quit their job or to reduce their working hours to be at home. The study did not show that the women stopped working because of their partner. However, 52% of the men answered “yes” when asked if they had engaged in work-related interference with their partner, indicating that a significant proportion of men in the study admitted using certain behaviours or tactics that interfered with or affected their partner’s ability to work [7].

The impact of IPV in workplaces in low- and middle-income countries was examined involving a total of 16,921 male and female employees from 257 companies in Ghana, South Sudan, Bolivia, and Paraguay [8]. The study found that all companies surveyed had some employees who were victims of IPV, with the consequences affecting both victims and perpetrators. Consequences included absenteeism, delays, and factors that affected employees’ work performance, which in turn led to production loss and economic costs for businesses. These findings highlight the need for governments, businesses, and communities to address IPV [8]. Another study evaluated the impact of a 10-month workplace intervention in a garment factory in India. The aim was to promote gender equality, with a focus on IPV against women as part of the intervention. Several tools were used, including information displays, leaflets, and information from experts in the field. Results showed that after 12 months, men and women from the intervention group expressed more gender-equal attitudes and were less likely to report acceptance of violence in their intimate relationships. Participants also had increased knowledge of domestic violence support services compared with the control group. The authors did not ask about participants’ experiences of IPV, so it was not possible to conclude how many of those who participated had experienced IPV themselves. Notwithstanding, the study found that the intervention was equally effective for men and women in gaining knowledge about IPV and gender-equal attitudes [9].

In the Philippines [10], a study examined the role of organisational support for employees who experienced IPV, whether at home or in the workplace. The study did not elaborate on the type of support offered by employers. However, it found that when employees who had experienced IPV themselves were supported by their workplaces, they found it easier to cope with the negative work-related consequences of IPV.

It is suggested that victims of IPV suffer multiple negative consequences, such as social isolation and health problems [10]. Some researchers argue that workplaces can play a key role in reducing the impact of IPV and increasing employee safety by providing information and support, and being prepared to respond effectively when employees are affected [11]. As such, there is a need for studies that synthesise the state of knowledge in the field of IPV and working life. Therefore, this study aimed to descriptively review the empirical evidence on the effects of IPV on the health and wellbeing of employed men and women, and their working life and work environment, as well as to identify what type of support employers give to their employees. The following research questions were addressed:

RQ1: What is the prevalence of domestic violence among working women and men in OECD countries?

RQ2: What are the consequences of domestic violence for the working environment and the health and wellbeing of employed victims?

RQ3: What help and support do employers offer to workers who are victims of IPV?

2 Materials and methods

2.2 Search strategy

Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in the databases PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO, beginning on March 24, 2024, and updated through March 2025. The search strategy included key terms related to IPV, workplace factors, health outcomes, and organisational responses. Specifically, the searches combined keywords such as “IPV,” “domestic violence,” “partner abuse,” and “intimate partner aggression” with terms like “consequences,” “effects,” “outcomes,” “impact,” “repercussion,” and “costs.” These were further combined with workplace-related terms, including “employ,” “working life,” “work conditions,” “workplace,” and “work environment,” along with terms describing the workforce, such as “employee,” “worker,” “staff,” and “personnel.” Health-related keywords included “mental health,” “physical health,” “wellbeing,” and “health outcome.” Additionally, organisational terms such as “place of work,” “organisation,” “company,” and “workplace” were incorporated, as well as terms relating to responses and policies like “policy,” “intervention,” “prevention,” “guidelines,” “assistance,” “support,” and “response.” Boolean operators were applied to combine these keywords effectively to maximise relevant search results while avoiding duplication and irrelevant records. The search terms were carefully reviewed to ensure clarity and comprehensiveness across all databases.

All search combinations were generated for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries as a whole and for individual OECD member countries. The review was conducted following the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines [12]. The PRISMA flowchart is presented in Figure 1. The eligibility criteria included peer-reviewed articles conducted in OECD countries, written in English, and published between 2014 and 2025. Participants in the study had to be working men or women and 18 years and older. The studies had to be about IPV and its impact on health, wellbeing, working life and the work environment, or the support and help offered by employers when employees are subjected to IPV. Articles were excluded if they were literature reviews, not peer-reviewed, published before 2014, conducted in non-OECD countries, or not written in English, and if the study participants were younger than 18 years or not in gainful employment. Studies were also excluded if they pertained to violence between biological family members, or if they dealt with support other than from employers.

Figure 1

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram of the screening process and selection of the included articles.

3 Results

A total of 1,054 articles were retrieved, of which 997 were excluded as they did not meet the previously stated inclusion criteria. Of the remaining 57 articles screened, only 22, published between 2014 and 2025, were included in the descriptive review. The majority of the reviewed studies (n = 14) were conducted in the United States [14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28]. Three were conducted in Australia [29,30,31], two in Canada [11,31], two in New Zealand [30,32], and one in the United Kingdom [33]. One study was conducted across two countries – the United States and Canada – and included data from both [34]. Geographically, most studies originated from the Americas (United States and Canada), with two from Australasia (New Zealand) and one from Europe (United Kingdom). Of the included studies, 12 employed quantitative methods [14,15,17,21,22,23,24,25,27,28,30,34], 5 used qualitative methods [18,19,20,31,32], and 5 adopted a mixed-methods approach [11,16,26,29,33]. Sample sizes ranged from 4 participants [20] to 3,854 [27] (Table 1).

The included studies employed varying research designs and sample sizes, leading to differences in how the prevalence of IPV among employed men and women was measured and reported. As a result, the findings indicated a wide range of IPV prevalence across sexes. One study that included both women and men found that over half of the female participants and a quarter of the male participants had experienced IPV at some point in their lives. Among the 1,390 participants, 74 women and 14 men reported experiencing IPV within the past 12 months. Furthermore, 47% of victims reported physical injuries resulting from the violence, with such injuries being more commonly reported by women [14]. Another study conducted in Oregon, USA, involved interviews with 17 female state employees who had experienced IPV in the previous year. Of these, 26% reported feeling threatened or stalked, as their partners or ex-partners harassed them by repeatedly telephoning them at work or physically appearing at their workplace. A separate study from the United States [26] reported that women experienced IPV and workplace disruption through digital abuse perpetrated by partners or ex-partners. Six in ten women reported experiencing workplace stalking by their current or former partners. In another study [25], 24% of 400 respondents reported experiencing IPV. The most frequently reported forms of violence were verbal (15%), physical (8%), sexual (4%), and stalking (4%). Exposure to IPV by current partners was reported by 28.6% of women and 20.4% of men. IPV was found to be most prevalent among participants with a history of childhood abuse, those working less than full-time, or those diagnosed with personality disorders. Gender-based associations between different forms of IPV exposure and employment outcomes were examined in another study, which assessed participants’ absence and attendance at work, as well as job satisfaction in relation to IPV. The authors found that, among 522 respondents, 52% of women and 48% of men reported experiences of violence [20]. A study conducted within a large company in the south-eastern United States reported that, among 535 employed women and men, approximately one in five workers had been exposed to IPV during their working lives. Of those exposed, 85% were women and 21% were men [16].

A Canadian study [11] investigated how workplaces were affected when employees experienced IPV and found that, among 437 participants (89% of whom were women), 83% reported that the violence had impacted their work. This was primarily due to difficulties with concentration or the need to take sick leave because they were too distressed to work. In another study by the same author [31], which involved interviews with employees, managers, and HR personnel, 10 out of 27 respondents – nine women and one man – reported experiencing various forms of IPV, including psychological, physical, sexual, and financial abuse, controlling behaviours, harassment, and stalking. A previously mentioned study involving 535 employees from a large company in the south-eastern United States [16] further explored IPV in the workplace. It found that 14% of participants – predominantly women – had experienced one or more violent behaviours from their partners, specifically restrictive or disruptive behaviours in relation to their work. Examples included partners physically preventing victims from attending work or threatening to force them to leave their jobs. Some victimised women reported that their partners sabotaged their cars, refused to help with childcare, stole keys or money, or refused to provide transport to work. Other forms of interference included lying about the health or safety of the children, pressuring victims to quit their jobs, or coming to the workplace to harass them.

The association between IPV and workplace absenteeism, particularly in cases where the partner interfered with the victim’s employment, was explored in one study involving 249 employed women [15]. Of these, 73% had experienced at least one form of violence (psychological or physical), 68 had experienced both, and one had experienced only psychological violence. The study identified a three-way interaction between IPV, partner interference, and family-supportive supervision in relation to absence frequency. Specifically, IPV victims whose partners interfered with their work exhibited lower absence frequency only when they received high – compared to low – levels of family-supportive supervision. Notably, such supervision was only associated with reduced absence when both IPV and partner interference were present. The authors argued that these findings highlight a unique opportunity for organisations to mitigate the negative effects of IPV and partner interference – not only for the direct victims but also for colleagues who may be indirectly affected [15]. Another study [33], which included 141 employed men and women, found that 40% had been stalked by an ex-partner, with 92% of those reporting that the stalking occurred at their workplace.

In total, seven studies in this review examined the impact of IPV on employees’ health and wellbeing. The mental health consequences reported included nervousness, stress, mental illness, depression, and anxiety [19]. Employed victims also experienced exhaustion, forgetfulness, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [26]. Other reported symptoms included paranoia at work, poor attention to detail, a sense of detachment or lack of focus, difficulty staying awake, and muscle pain [26]. Many victims described feeling constantly tired and lacking concentration, which negatively affected their work performance. Some were emotionally exhausted from trying to remain productive at work while dealing with ongoing abuse [31]. Working women were found to have three times worse health-related quality of life compared to their male colleagues, with reported effects including anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, reduced vitality, physical pain, and elevated stress levels [17]. Depression and PTSD were prevalent among both male and female participants [22]. Additional health problems and chronic conditions were also reported, including daily physical pain from previous injuries, head trauma leading to memory and cognitive impairments, and difficulties focusing – all of which hindered work performance [20].

Both male and female victims reported physical symptoms such as headaches, dizziness, shortness of breath, stomach issues, and reduced sex drive [33]. Some participants indicated that pre-existing conditions – such as asthma or skin irritations – had worsened, and that their use of alcohol, drugs, or tobacco had increased. In the same study, among 92 respondents, 87% reported experiencing depression, sleep disturbances, low self-confidence, isolation, and loneliness. Over half reported panic attacks, trust issues, difficulties with intimacy, suicidal ideation or attempts, and increased use of drugs, cigarettes, or prescription medication. Some also reported disordered eating [33].

Several studies in this review also addressed the consequences of IPV on the broader work environment, particularly in relation to workplace stalking behaviours [14,19,26,33]. Victims reported that IPV incidents occurring in the workplace disrupted their ability to perform their duties. Their working lives were affected when partners followed them to work, waited outside the premises, or monitored their activities. Some partners harassed victims by calling their mobile or office phones repeatedly, or by sending frequent text messages. In some cases, perpetrators sent multiple emails throughout the day or used social media to send unsolicited messages to victims or their colleagues, thereby interfering with workplace productivity [14,19,26,33]. Such behaviours placed not only the victims but also their co-workers at risk, as perpetrators sometimes contacted or even threatened colleagues, creating an unsafe work environment. Business productivity was jeopardised due to increased absenteeism, reduced concentration, and the emotional burden carried by affected employees [14]. Blodgett and Lanigan [14] reported that, in some cases, perpetrators contacted the victim’s supervisors or colleagues in ways that were threatening or humiliating. Other consequences for victims included missing over a week of work due to injury, fear of escalating violence, being physically restrained, or experiencing emotional distress. Managers noted that IPV created challenges in the workplace, including increased workloads due to the need to redistribute the victim’s tasks, and last-minute changes to work schedules when victims had to take sudden leave [19]. Victims often lost work time or became unemployed as a result of their partner’s violent behaviour. Many missed workdays due to physical injuries, emotional distress, or difficulties managing childcare responsibilities. It was also common for victims to arrive late or leave work early. IPV affected their work output, leading to slower performance, reduced motivation, and diminished ambition [26]. Many victims reported feeling anxious about disclosing their situation to colleagues for fear of stigma or altered perceptions. Some also lost job opportunities, which hindered career progression [29].

The impact of violence on victims’ careers was demonstrated across several studies. For example, perpetrators sabotaged victims’ educational opportunities and professional relationships or obstructed their prospects for promotion. Pachner et al. found that IPV diminished victims’ confidence in their ability to work and hindered their capacity to achieve long-term career goals due to lost working days or weeks [24]. The effects of IPV in the workplace frequently led to increased absenteeism or reduced productivity, which employers often perceived as performance issues. Consequently, victims were sometimes subjected to performance reviews, disciplinary procedures, and, in some cases, termination of employment [32].

Many victims were reluctant to seek help from their employers, fearing that disclosure would negatively affect their job performance evaluations or professional credibility. Some chose not to disclose their experiences of IPV at work due to controlling supervisors, hostile colleagues, or oppressive workplace cultures; some women described feeling vulnerable and emotionally tethered to the organisation in ways reminiscent of abusive relationships [18].

Psychological, physical, and sexual abuse reported by victims had a significant impact on the overall work capacity of both women and men. Sexual violence was associated with increased absenteeism among women, but not men, while exposure to psychological violence reduced job satisfaction for both genders [31]. Moreover, IPV was linked to various negative outcomes in victims’ work environments, including impaired concentration and inability to perform to their full potential. It was common for victims to call in sick due to emotional distress, and many feared that colleagues would discover their personal difficulties. Giesbrecht [11] found that some victims left work early or feigned illness because they were too upset to continue working.

The findings indicated that IPV posed significant risks not only to victims but also to their co-workers. Perpetrators sometimes directly threatened victims in the workplace, indirectly affecting colleagues. One study reported cases where perpetrators followed victims to their place of work or to colleagues’ homes, with one incident involving the perpetrator damaging a colleague’s vehicle when they were driving the victim home. Stalking and harassment by current or former partners also disrupted co-workers’ ability to perform their duties and increased their anxiety and fear [31].

Women who experienced physical abuse from their partners were more likely to report work-related impacts than those who did not suffer physical abuse. These women reported high levels of distraction at work, suggesting that stress and emotional strain impaired their focus and productivity. Physical abuse was also associated with increased absenteeism, leaving work early, taking extended breaks, or intentions to leave employment altogether [34]. Victims of IPV frequently experienced a decline in work performance, took sick leave, changed jobs, or lost income due to reduced working hours, job loss, or career changes [33]. Living in an abusive relationship was disruptive and adversely affected female victims’ career development in multiple ways, including career planning, daily work activities, career identity, professional reputation, and access to development opportunities. Perpetrators employed abusive tactics to prevent women from applying for jobs or controlled which applications they submitted. Furthermore, abused women often suffered daily physical pain and head injuries that impaired memory and concentration, complicating their ability to perform certain types of work [20].

Regarding help and support offered by employers to victims of IPV, only 15 studies described the nature of support provided to employees experiencing IPV. Of these, eight were conducted in the United States, four in Australia, and one each in New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The included studies revealed that both the United States and Australia have enacted laws to support employees who are victims of IPV [19]. For example, the Employment Protection Act, implemented in Oregon in 2007, permits employees to take unpaid leave if exposed to IPV. This law applies to employees who are victims themselves or to parents or guardians of a minor child who has experienced violence, sexual assault, criminal harassment, or stalking. Employees working for organisations with more than five employees are entitled to take such leave. The legislation also allows employees to attend counselling, seek medical treatment, or participate in court hearings without fear of losing their jobs. Laharnar et al. [19] examined the implementation and utilisation of Oregon’s IPV leave law from two perspectives: Oregon state employees who had experienced IPV and state managers overseeing such employees. Their findings revealed that three years post-implementation, 74% of participants were unaware of the law’s existence, and 65% of those exposed to IPV would have benefitted had they known about it. The primary barriers to effective implementation related to managers’ lack of education regarding IPV and misunderstanding of the law’s provisions [19]. Other studies reported that employers created flexible working arrangements tailored to victims’ needs, such as modifying schedules, allowing tasks to be completed later, or altering the physical location of work to ensure employee safety [29]. Employers also implemented workplace safety procedures to protect victims from their abusers and informed relevant staff about the victim’s safety requirements [29]. In the United States, employer support for IPV victims included providing safety measures, legal assistance, and access to employee assistance programmes designed to prevent victims from losing paid work hours or their jobs – factors critical to the long-term wellbeing of affected women and their families [26]. Additionally, managers and colleagues were often reported to listen attentively to victims, showing genuine concern [24]. Support strategies included easing workloads, providing information about IPV, offering relationship advice, maintaining confidentiality, asking victims what help they desired, and granting paid time off. However, the same study found disparities in support based on race: Black and White women received different types and levels of assistance. Black women tended to receive support primarily for isolated incidents causing workplace disruption, whereas White women received more comprehensive support addressing multiple disruptions. White women were also more likely to be asked about their wellbeing and offered practical help, such as colleagues taking the initiative to contact counselling services, helplines, or shelters [24].

Workplace interventions aimed at supporting employees exposed to violence included measures such as managers controlling employees’ external phone calls to prevent harassment or threats from partners/ex-partners. Support from managers, HR personnel, or colleagues often involved listening to victims, providing comfort, or assisting with securing alternative housing [18]. Some studies reported managerial provision of counselling or referrals to professional services, alongside staff training on appropriate responses should perpetrators appear at the workplace [31,33]. Importantly, employees often reported feeling trusted by their managers and colleagues. Emotional and practical support from co-workers and managers was also noted among victimised women in the United States [17]. In New Zealand, the “Domestic Violence Free (DVFREE)” programme, run by Shine Aotearoa New Zealand, seeks to help workplaces address IPV. The programme fosters a safe working environment where employees feel supported and encouraged to seek help, thereby promoting a culture of safety, awareness, and support [32]. In Canada, workplace support often involves family-oriented programmes providing access to counselling, therapy, IPV information, and workplace safety planning [31]. However, many workplaces in Canada – including non-profit organisations, healthcare agencies, unions, post-secondary institutions, agriculture, finance, public safety, anti-violence organisations, and newcomer support services – lacked formal IPV policies, and where policies existed, employees were often unaware of them [31]. In Orlando, Florida, the Recognize, Respond, Refer (RRR) programme was developed to mitigate IPV’s workplace consequences. Based on the socio-ecological framework, the programme engaged individuals at multiple levels and trained employers and employees to recognise and respond appropriately to IPV. Evaluated across 157 companies spanning aviation, healthcare, social services, and general operations, the programme increased knowledge of intimate partner abuse, willingness to assist victims, and ability to refer them to essential resources. The evaluation indicated that workplace training can catalyse broader organisational changes [23]. In Australia, a study examining the role of HR in supporting IPV-exposed employees surveyed 414 HR professionals and first-line managers. Counselling (70%), flexible work arrangements (65%), and leave for victims of violence (53%) were the most common practices. However, few organisations offered supervisor training on recognising victims of violence (18%) or supporting victims to disclose IPV at work (15%) [30]. Another study highlighted the importance of family-supportive supervision, a management approach encouraging employees to discuss personal or family issues affecting their work, thereby creating a more supportive work environment [15]. An analysis of 191 publicly traded Australian companies, collectively employing 1.5 million people, revealed that 58% had some policy or formal strategy addressing IPV, while 95% offered some form of support to affected employees. Common supports included paid or unpaid leave and flexible working arrangements. Many workplaces also assisted employees in accessing relevant IPV support services [28].

Regarding legal protections, a study of 37 US states found that 46% offered reasonable accommodation rights, allowing IPV victims to take time off work to address violence-related issues such as medical treatment or legal proceedings. However, definitions of “reasonable accommodation” varied considerably: Oregon required all employers to provide safety information, job relocation, or schedule adjustments, whereas New Hampshire limited accommodations to state employees. Additionally, 19.5% of states had confidentiality policies safeguarding victimised employees’ privacy regarding personal and legal matters, and 32% prohibited employers from terminating employees for IPV-related work disruptions. In North Carolina, for example, employers cannot fire, demote, deny promotion, or discipline employees for taking a reasonable time off to seek help related to IPV [21]. The effectiveness of workplace confidentiality and leave policies in the United States was also studied. Results showed that privacy policies benefitted employees by reducing workplace gossip. Workplaces implementing both privacy and leave policies provided particularly strong protections, correlating with a significant reduction in abuse [27].

4 Discussion

This review aimed to identify the impact of IPV on the work environment, working life, health, and wellbeing of victims across OECD countries. Additionally, it sought to illuminate how employers support and assist employees exposed to domestic violence. The findings indicate that IPV is widespread and affects both male and female employees [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,22,25,33]. Both working men and women are subjected to physical, psychological, and sexual violence [16,25]. In most of the samples studied, women were overrepresented compared with men [11,12,13,14,16,17,18,33]. Women were also described as particularly vulnerable to IPV, with the violence reported to be more physical and severe than that experienced by men [14], consistent with previous findings by other authors [35,36,37]. The World Health Organization (WHO) recognises violence against women as a significant global public health issue, which may partly explain the overrepresentation of women in the reviewed samples. Furthermore, this overrepresentation may be attributable to the inclusion of female-dominated organisations in many of the studies [37]. Conversely, some studies found no gender differences in the risk of psychological violence [14] or violence involving stalking behaviours [14,19]. In line with prior research, this review also revealed considerable variation in the extent of IPV reported. Differences in research design, sample size, and measurement methods contributed to disparities in how IPV prevalence among employed men and women was reported. These observations align with earlier studies indicating variability in IPV exposure across research contexts [38]. Possible explanations for these variations include differing definitions of IPV, variations in sampling methods, data collection procedures, temporal perspectives, and analytical techniques. Additionally, the reviewed studies reflected diverse contexts of violence exposure, with some focusing solely on IPV victims, while others included individuals who were both victims and perpetrators.

It is important to note that such methodological differences and definitions of violence may have influenced the variability in reported IPV prevalence. For example, some respondents in the reviewed studies did not self-identify as victims despite reporting multiple experiences of IPV [16]. Previous research suggests that abused women may exhibit greater acceptance of wife beating, potentially indicating that some victims normalise violence or perceive it as a typical aspect of daily life [37]. This could explain why certain participants did not identify as victims despite having experienced partner violence [17]. Similarly, empirical evidence suggests that many male victims struggle to identify themselves as abuse victims at the hands of female partners [38,39,40,41]. While it is not possible to conclusively determine whether this accounts for the lower reported rates of male victimisation in workplaces, it may contribute to underreporting due to societal norms or feelings of shame [38,39,40,41]. The review’s findings further demonstrated that IPV has significant physical and psychological consequences for the health and wellbeing of employed victims. Psychological effects included stress, depression, PTSD, reduced self-confidence, and trust issues [22,33]. Physical symptoms encompassed headaches, sleep deprivation, muscle pain, and gastrointestinal problems [33]. Many victims also experienced shame and guilt for remaining in abusive relationships [18]. Regarding occupational consequences, IPV was associated with constant fatigue, exhaustion, and impaired concentration, negatively affecting work performance [31]. Exposure to IPV has also been linked to increased substance use and suicidal ideation or attempts. These impacts often persist long after the violence ceases, with some victims experiencing enduring cognitive impairment [20]. One study reported that IPV causes both immediate [41] and chronic physical and psychological harm [40,42,43].

The findings suggest that IPV generates emotional exhaustion as victims attempt to maintain work performance while enduring abuse. Victims frequently reported fatigue and difficulties concentrating at work, which could be particularly hazardous in occupations requiring sustained attention. This underscores the health and safety risks IPV poses, not only to individuals but also to colleagues and others within the work environment [31]. Comparable results have been observed previously in Mexico, where abusive men engaged in workplace-related tactics such as threats and physical violence against their partners [7]. Additionally, in a study carried out in India, many perpetrators prevented their partners from attending work, emotionally traumatised them during work hours, or harassed them via phone calls while they were at work [9].

Several employees, predominantly women, reported violence directly targeting their work lives. For instance, partners sabotaged vehicles, stole keys or money, refused transport to work, or physically followed victims to their workplace, monitoring and harassing them via text messages or social media. In some cases, abusers contacted workplace managers or colleagues [16]. Such behaviours disrupted the workplace, jeopardising the safety of victims and their coworkers and threatening productivity. Managers sometimes had to rearrange schedules at short notice to support victims and mitigate risks, imposing increased workloads on other staff [14,19,24,33]. Overall, the studies revealed that IPV negatively affects victims’ working lives and work environments, thereby influencing colleagues’ productivity and the organisation as a whole [14,16,18]. These findings align with research from non-OECD countries associating IPV with absenteeism, tardiness, and consequent economic losses for businesses [8].

Support and assistance provided by employers to employees exposed to IPV varied considerably between (and within) OECD countries. In the United States and Australia, legislation exists to facilitate time off for affected employees [19,29]. However, implementation differs; some workplaces require documentation certifying the need for leave due to IPV [19]. In the United States, inconsistencies in policy definitions and interpretations mean employer support varies by region [21]. Generally, support was offered via workplace policies and programmes [28], HR supervision [30,15], routine enquiry about violence, flexible scheduling, and counselling services [33]. Beyond formal measures, employers also supported employees by listening to their concerns [26] or providing transport to ensure safe commuting [29]. This concurs with previous research emphasising the importance of an organisational culture that adopts a zero-tolerance stance towards IPV and fosters a supportive environment for victims. Evidence suggests that such workplace support can play a pivotal role in mitigating the adverse work-related effects of IPV [10].

The review also identified specific workplace programmes designed to assist IPV victims. For example, New Zealand’s DVFREE programme offers practical tools and resources to manage IPV effectively in the workplace, promoting a culture of safety, awareness, and support [32]. In the United States, the RRR training programme aims to enhance employers’ and employees’ capacity to recognise and respond to IPV promptly [23]. Outside the OECD, an Indian study reported a successful intervention promoting gender equality and raising awareness of violence against women within the workplace [9].

This review possesses several strengths and limitations. It is among the first to comprehensively assess IPV’s impact on workplace environments affecting both male and female victims across OECD countries, incorporating studies of diverse sample sizes, methodologies, and geographical settings. The review also highlights a significant gap in empirical research on this topic within Europe, despite the well-documented health, wellbeing, and occupational consequences of IPV. Moreover, it has not been easy to contrast the results of this literature review due to a lack of comparable studies from other world regions that have empirically examined the impact of IPV on workplace environments. However, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, only articles written in English were included, which may have influenced the findings. Second, grey literature was excluded, as the focus was limited to peer-reviewed research publications. Finally, the search was restricted to studies published up to May 2025; therefore, more recent literature may contain findings not captured in this review.

Several key areas for future research and policy development emerge from this review. Firstly, the dominance of studies from the United States underscores the need for region-specific research, especially within Europe, to account for cultural and legislative variation. Secondly, the impact of IPV extends beyond victims to colleagues and the wider workplace, necessitating further investigation into productivity losses and organisational costs, alongside the wellbeing of affected coworkers. Thirdly, qualitative research is vital to better understand the effectiveness of existing workplace support and how such assistance is perceived by recipients. Finally, men’s experiences of IPV and their views on workplace support remain underexplored and warrant attention. These gaps carry important policy implications. Policymakers should prioritise culturally and legally tailored interventions based on region-specific evidence. Given the broader organisational impact of IPV, comprehensive workplace strategies are needed to support victims and colleagues indirectly affected. Additionally, policies should emphasise the evaluation and ongoing enhancement of workplace support services, informed by qualitative data on employee experiences. Crucially, recognising and addressing men’s exposure to IPV within policy frameworks is essential to develop inclusive support systems that serve all employees, irrespective of gender.

5 Conclusions

The findings of the review indicate that the prevalence of IPV is widespread and that more female than male employees are victims of IPV. In addition, the employed men and women were exposed to physical, psychological, sexual, and digital violence, which was associated with injuries, stress, anxiety, depression, and PTSD. The findings indicated that IPV had an impact on the victims’ work environment as these employees were emotionally exhausted from trying to focus and perform well at work despite their exposure to, and fear of, IPV. Consequently, much of their work was passed on to their colleagues. Furthermore, IPV affected the victims’ working life in aspects such as career identity, professional reputation, and opportunities for career development, and the need to take long-term sick leave, which made it difficult for the victims to build a strong employment history, references, and professional credibility. Help and support from employers varied between and within OECD member countries, with support being provided in the form of laws, workplace policies, workplace programmes, and support through HR guidance, safety planning, counselling, and flexible schedules for the victims.