46 Burn-related Violence Against Women in the US: Findings from the ABA Burn Registry
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Violence against women is a global public health problem and a violation of human rights. CDC data shows 41% of US women have experienced intimate partner violence. Burn-related violence against women (BVAW) is an extremely confronting form of physical violence, however, limited evidence has been published in scientific literature. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency, demographic, injury and outcome characteristics of women admitted to US burn centers who have experienced burn violence and determine if these characteristics were different to characteristics of women admitted with accidental burns. Methods Data was extracted from the ABA National Burn Registry (NBR) for women, ≥ 18 years old, admitted to US Burn Centers between 2008 and 2018. NBR injury intent variables identified women who sustained burn violence or accidental injuries to separate them into two comparator groups. All NBR ‘accidental’ injury intent variables were collapsed into one variable. Women who experienced self-harm were excluded. Descriptive and simple comparative statistics were used to describe and compare groups. Results There were 54,630 women who met study inclusion criteria, 1063 (2%) experienced burn violence. Women who experienced burn violence were younger (38.1 yrs [mean]) than women with accidental injuries (47.8 yrs). A significantly greater proportion of the burn violence group were Black/African American women compared to the accidental injury group (44.7% vs. 22.1%, p< 0.05) and a greater proportion of burn violence patients were covered by Medicaid (40.1% vs. 22.1%, p< 0.05). Women who sustained violence had more severe injuries than their counterparts, in terms of both %TBSA extent ([median] 6.1% vs. 3.0%, p< 0.05) and burn depth (3rd degree) ([median] 11.0% vs. 2.0 %, p< 0.05). Scald and flame injuries were the most frequent mechanism of injury in both groups. Length of hospital stay was longer for women who sustained burn violence ([median] 15.9 vs. 9.2 days, p< 0.05) and ICU stay ([median] 21.0 vs. 6.5 days, p< 0.05) was also significantly longer. However, there were no differences in mortality rates between groups (5.5% vs 4.3%). Conclusions Whilst the frequency of women who sustained burn violence, and were admitted to US burn centers appears small, they are confronting injuries that can result in significant physical and psychological sequelae. Compared to women with accidental burns, women who experience burn violence were younger, disproportionately Black/African American, suffered more severe injuries and experienced poorer outcomes. American women deserve better Applicability of Research to Practice Burns can be easily explained as unintentional, especially when women can’t tell their stories. To protect women, US burn centers require robust, standardized approaches to identify and respond to burn violence and the ABA can lend a voice to advocacy efforts against violence against women, collaborating alongside stakeholder organizations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».