 Thank you, we have got Neal Brom. University of London City. Neals is a research fellow at the violence and society centre at City University of London and the visual consortium. In his work he investigates violence and abuse and its relationship with labour market transitions and health and wellbeing. Neals is also responsible for a programme of work harmonising and integrating data …y'r cyfrifau sy'n cyfrifwyr cyfrifwyr… …y'r cyfrifwyr sy'n cyfrifwyr a'r bwysig. Rwy'n cael ei wneud, ac mae'n gwybod. Arwch. Ie. Yr ysgol. Mhag i'r gwbl. A wnaeth ydych yn gweithio yma yma yma yma yma yma yma yma yma yma yma… …yma yma yma yma, a'r cyfrifwyr ar gyfer ymlaen. A gweithio'r siwser o'r hoffi, oherwydd yma yma yma yma eich hoffi, ddwy'r llyfr yn ddwylliant, ddwy Lleona, ddwy Merrily yn Chesnwyr, ddwy'r llyfr yn ddwy'r llyfr yn ddwy'r llyfr. Felly, rydw i'n cael ei fod yn cyhoeddiol gyda'r cyfnod i'r rheshau gyda'r website, ac mae'n ddwy'r llyfr yn ddwy'r Llyfr. Felly, rydw i'n gwneud. I'm just gonna. So first, why combine a lot of years? Like many people, many people will know. Well it's the point is to do temporal trends, but also to look at maybe specific offences or crimes that don't have enough, are not common enough in a one year of a crime so you combine a lot of together. You can also look at specific population groups. You can look at intersecting in the qualities and rare consequence. So just as the importance of looking at multiple years together, this project specifically comes from that we needed to do that. And we need to do that for multiple projects, multiple times and for multiple different time frames. So we developed this initially for our own project and we thought it might be useful for others as well so to share it. And combining multiple years, especially for can be time consuming, annoying, complex, whatever. So this is hopefully to help other researchers. It's in STATA because that was the program that we use. That will be impossible to read, but it doesn't matter. You can specify what you want. So do you want the years before 2001 or after if you want of the years after how many do you want? Do you want from 2001 to the latest one? Yes or no? Do you also want to merge the adolescent or youth samples? That is one. Do you want the ethnic minority boost surveys? Do you want the bulletins? And that is you can specify it and it should run your specification. And you specify where data is stored and the folder structure, which is all as it's downloaded from the UKDS website. So just to hopefully ease and otherwise maybe annoying tasks. Maybe that's just me who finds that annoying. So in the end, depending on which ones you requested, you get the following data sets. So the post 2001 non-victim form, the three 2001 non-victim form, adolescent youth surveys, ethnic minority boost. And they are saved in the folder that you specified. So it is also on the reshare website. There is a user guide that if you follow it you can hopefully easily do it for your own study. And a couple of things important to note is what it does do and what it doesn't do. So first it merges all the files together and that's the point. It's flexible that you only need to download the data that you need and it's relatively quick, but it doesn't harmonise the variables. So things change over time. They tend to have a different name when the new version of the variable is included. We did not harmonise those because what I might need for my research might be different from yours. Very few, but one variable that does change the category slightly is household income. So just to highlight if you use it to also check back into the service to see is it exactly the same over the years. Also what this doesn't do, it doesn't work in the UKDS peer researcher environment because the folder structure is slightly different. The data sets have different names and a year is missing. And it's a state of code. So that is important again for state of use. So an example of how we've used it, well actually you've seen Polina who has used it and I believe Louise as well. This is a different paper and it's focused on intimate partner violence based on the face to face question section and that has a reason which I will come to later. So the previous research on intimate partner violence and health has indicated that intimate partner violence has a strong negative impact on health and well-being. And more so than non-intimate partner violence I believe in general. Also intimate partner violence is defined by the relationship between victim and perpetrator. However that noted there are a lot of different types of intimate partner. Some are current partners, some are ex partners but also some might be spouses and some might be dating. And this diversity within the intimate partner category might impact how much violence by these perpetrators affect victim survivors and affect their health, their health risks. So we want to study this and therefore we study, we ask how the health and well-being impact differ for different types of intimate partner perpetrators. And we focus on a variety of different forms of violence and abuse. Specifically physical violence and abuse, sexual violence and abuse, threats and also economic crimes by a intimate partner. We use the crime survey, I think I'm going quite quickly through it all but we'll see. So we use the face to face section specifically because that's where it is asked on the victim perpetrator relationship the specific types of intimate partners. Was it a current spouse or current boyfriend and a former spouse in the former boy or girlfriend. However I'd like to note is that IPVA's are under-reported in the face to face section compared to the self-complete section. Over 20 years of emerging data we have about 4,000 records of IPVA or 1,000 victim forms, about three and a half are among female victim survivors. And well they asked then about the crime experience in the past 12 months. The models that are all or the figures that I show you later are based on order logic models and marginal effects at the means. We analyze men and women separately and we control for whether it was a singular event or was it repeated, main demographic variables as well. And also survey year. The key measurements that I wanted to discuss today. So first we dependent variable we have emotional well-being and physical injury. Emotional well-being is like how much the crime offense affect you. Did it affect you not at all or up to very much. And physical injury is whether no force was used, force was used but no injury and then did it lead to an injury. The victim perpetrator at the time of the incident is these are the categories as used and or as in survey. So is it a husband, was it the husband, wife or partner? Was it a current boyfriend or girlfriend? Was it the former spouse, husband, wife or partner, former boy or girlfriend? And we combined all other types of perpetrators in the other category. For the offense categories in which we analyze separately then is physical violence and abuse, sexual violence, threats and economic crimes. We also include economic crimes for the reason that economic crimes by an intimate partner may be considered to be a part of economic abuse. But also under economic crimes recorded in the crime survey as Merrily and Jess have shown in a paper recently published. There's quite a bit of physical violence involved as well. At least disproportionately compared to other groups, if I say that correctly. Now where we don't include coercive control and stalking. So just the descriptives of the current intimate partner violence and abuse recorded. So different types of intimate partner violence. About 70% is by a former Merri partner. So that is the red group is former spouse and blue is current spouse. So it's by a former or currently married people or partner. And 25% is by a former boy or girlfriend and 5% by current or girlfriend. So as an indication that at least according to the face to face section of the crime survey, the majority of intimate partner violence is due to current or formerly married people or partners. Now what type, what type of crime has been committed in these different relationship contacts. The percentage will be difficult but here under current spouse or partner in blue about 50% of the crimes that we reported are physical violence and abuse. 9% sexual, 23% threats and about 19% economic. For current boy or girlfriend it's about 60% physical violence. And if you look at former spouses and former boy or girlfriends there's relatively more threats and relatively more economic crimes committed by these types of intimate partners. So then we look at the impact that it has, that the respondents has. So it is here based on ordent logic models with marginal effects at the means. And in red it is very much, you were very respondent say they were very much emotionally affected by what happened. And here it's current spouse or partner and that is higher, significantly higher than current boyfriend or girlfriend for physical violence. So physical violence by a current spouse or partner seem to have a higher emotional impact than by a current boyfriend. Although also by a former spouse or partner is also a higher emotional impact than by a current boy or girlfriend. Important to note is that all IPVA has a higher emotional impact than by a other type of perpetrator. If we look at economic crimes we see a relatively similar pattern where current spouses have a higher impact or economic crimes by current spouse have a higher impact than crimes by former, sorry, by a current boyfriend or girlfriend. This is by the way against women. For sexual violence and for threats there were no statistical differences between the groups. If we look at the risk of physical injury it's slightly different the results. Namely current spouses have a higher risk of injury or physical violence than physical violence committed by former spouses. And also by then former boy or girlfriends. For sexual violence there are no statistical significant differences between the intimate partner perpetrator types. Among economic crimes committed by a current spouse or partner about 20% lead to injury and that is significantly higher than by former spouses. So as an indication that crimes recorded in the crime survey in the face-to-face section by current spouses seem to have a higher risk of injury than by former spouses. At least for physical and economic. So in conclusion first combining multiple years the crime survey is very useful if you want to look at small populations at rare consequences of smaller groups looking at intersectional inequalities. This code may aid you in a bit for a bit. Then regarding the paper. So all IPVA has a higher emotional and physical health impact than offences by others. And this is the case for both men and women. And for physical and economic IPVA against women regarding the emotional impact it is that current and former spouses or partners have a higher impact than when they were described by the respondent as a current boy or girlfriend. But for injuries it seems to be the case that it's more current partners versus former partners that increase the risk of injury. And where research and policy doesn't already account for these differences that might be interesting for future research for interventions. That's it. Thank you.