Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of prevalence data from 19 countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We aimed to describe the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) during pregnancy across 19 countries, and examine trends across age groups and UN regions. We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Demographic and Health Surveys (20 surveys from 15 countries) and the International Violence Against Women Surveys (4 surveys from 4 countries) carried out between 1998 and 2007. Our data suggest that intimate partner violence during a pregnancy is a common experience. The prevalence of IPV during pregnancy ranged from approximately 2.0% in Australia, Cambodia, Denmark and the Philippines to 13.5% in Uganda among ever-pregnant, ever-partnered women; half of the surveys estimated prevalence to be between 3.9 and 8.7%. Prevalence appeared to be higher in African and Latin American countries relative to the European and Asian countries surveyed. In most settings, prevalence was relatively constant in the younger age groups (age 15-35), and then appeared to decline very slightly after age 35. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy is more common than some maternal health conditions routinely screened for in antenatal care. Global initiatives to reduce maternal mortality and improve maternal health must devote increased attention to violence against women, particularly violence during pregnancy.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it