Nurse home visitors' perceived awareness of mandatory reporting requirements: pregnant women's and children's exposure to intimate partner violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim To examine nurse home visitors' perceived awareness of reporting requirements for intimate partner violence during pregnancy and children's exposure to such violence. Background Many home visitation programmes employ nurses to deliver prenatal and parenting education and services to pregnant women and mothers. Although home visitors are responsible for reporting child maltreatment, the extent to which mandated reporting laws apply to intimate partner violence perpetrated against pregnant women and children's exposure varies considerably between jurisdictions. Design Cross‐sectional descriptive survey design. Methods A web‐based survey was sent to all home visitors in the Nurse‐Family Partnership programme in April/May 2010. The survey contained two vignettes describing client disclosure of intimate partner violence when: (1) the client is pregnant; and (2) the client's child is in her arms during the violent episode. Participants were asked about perceived reporting requirements and factors that guide reporting decisions. Findings Approximately half of the target population returned completed surveys ( n =532). Over a quarter of the sample believed that they were mandated to report abuse of a pregnant woman and two‐thirds indicated awareness of a mandate to report when the child was in the mother's arms during the violence. Most nurses indicated that reporting decisions should be based on state law. Conclusion Nurse home visitors may believe that they are mandated to report children's exposure to intimate partner violence when the child is at risk of physical harm. Home visitation providers likely consider multiple factors when determining whether to report intimate partner violence and children's exposure to intimate partner violence.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".