[The gender gap in domestic violence in older adults in Latin America: the IMIAS Study].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Describe the prevalence of domestic violence in older men and women in Natal, Brazil, and Manizales, Colombia and explore whether the differences by gender are due to lifetime differences in social and financial status. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with a random sampling of 802 men and women in the IMIAS Study (International Mobility in Aging Study) (65-74 years old) conducted in Natal (Brazil) and Manizales (Colombia). Incidents that occurred in the last six months and any time during their lives were evaluated using the HITS scale. Poisson regression was used to estimate the reasons for the prevalence of violence against women by men. RESULTS: Experience of physical violence occurring any time in life ranged from 2.2% to 18.3%, depending on the city and the sex. Psychological violence was higher in women: violence perpetrated by partners affected 25.7% of women in Natal and 19.4% in Manizales; and by the family, 18.3% in Manizales and 10% in Natal. Almost half of the participants reported suffering psychological violence at some time during their life. Experience of current violence or at some time during life was most frequent in women, even after adjustment for co-variables, with prevalence ratios of 1.60 to 2.14. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of prevalence of domestic violence in older adults show that women are more affected, which means that they should be considered a priority in the prevention policies on Latin America's health agenda.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".