Risk indicators to identify intimate partner violence in the emergency department.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence against women is prevalent and is associated with poor health outcomes. Understanding indicators of exposure to intimate partner violence can assist health care professionals to identify and respond to abused women. This study was undertaken to determine the strength of association between selected evidence-based risk indicators and exposure to intimate partner violence. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study of 768 English-speaking women aged 18-64 years who presented to 2 emergency departments in Ontario, Canada, participants answered questions about risk indicators and completed the Composite Abuse Scale to determine their exposure to intimate partner violence in the past year. RESULTS: Intimate partner violence was significantly associated with being separated, in a common-law relationship or single (odds ratio [OR] = 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-3.71); scoring positive for depression (OR = 4.26, 95% CI 2.11-8.60) or somatic symptoms (OR = 4.09, 95% CI 2.18-7.67); having a male partner who was employed less than part time (OR = 5.12, 95% CI 2.46-10.64), or having a partner with an alcohol (OR = 4.36, 95% CI 2.16-8.81) or drug problem (OR = 4.63, 95% CI 1.89-11.38). Each unit increase in the number of indicators corresponded to a four-fold increase in the risk of intimate partner violence (OR = 3.92, 95% CI 3.06-5.02); women with 3 or more indicators had a greater than 50% probability of a positive score on the Composite Abuse Scale. Intimate partner violence was not associated with pregnancy status. CONCLUSION: Specific characteristics of male partners, relationships and women's mental health are significantly related to exposure to intimate partner violence in the past year. Identification of these indicators has implications for the clinical care of women who present to health care settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".