Ontario Chiropractors' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Intimate Partner Violence Among Their Patients: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study assessed chiropractors' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experience about intimate partner violence (IPV) and identified if any differences exist between age groups, sex, and year of graduation of respondents. METHODS: Five hundred five Ontario chiropractors were sampled from the Canadian Chiropractic Association membership using a randomization program. This study used a cross-sectional survey. The sample was mailed an introductory postcard and 3 subsequent Provider Surveys, demographic forms, and information letters depending on nonresponse. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis analyses of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A response rate of 61% was attained. Of the respondents, 88% reported that IPV was rare or very rare in their practice. Significant sex differences were identified. Female respondents were almost twice as likely to strongly disagree with victim-blaming statements and were almost twice as concerned for their safety as male chiropractors when broaching the topic with batterers. Older practitioners were significantly more likely to inquire about IPV depending on symptoms, blame victims, have less fear of offending victims, and have fewer safety concerns. Earlier graduates were significantly more likely to inquire about IPV depending on clinical presentation but were also more likely to blame victims. CONCLUSIONS: Ontario chiropractors have very little experience identifying IPV. Chiropractors would benefit from educational programs that would enable them to better identify and manage patients experiencing IPV. Sex, age, and experience were important modifiers in Ontario chiropractors' perceptions and behaviors regarding IPV among their patients.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".