Why Do Jordanian Women Stay in an Abusive Relationship: Implications for Health and Social Well‐Being
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
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to explore why Jordanian women stay with an abusive husband. DESIGN: The study used a qualitative approach to collect data from 28 abused women who were recruited through their community during the summer and fall of 2007. METHODS: Data were collected using an open-ended question through one-on-one in-depth interviews. FINDINGS: Results from analysis of the qualitative data revealed that abused Jordanian women identified five main reasons for staying with an abusive husband: the inherited social background, financial dependency, lack of family support, sacrificing self for the sake of the children, and the adverse social consequences of divorce. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that Jordanian women are strongly bound by traditions and cultural rules and lack all means of empowerment. Results of the study have implications for healthcare providers, social workers, policy makers, and educators to enhance the health and social well-being of Arab Muslim women in Jordan. The findings may also apply to Arab families immigrating to the United States, Canada, and Europe who tend to bring their cultural beliefs, values, and norms, and may help healthcare professionals dealing with violence against women in these countries. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Healthcare professionals worldwide need to play an instrumental role in providing culture-specific and evidence-based care to empower women staying in abusive relationships, taking into consideration the influence of Arab Muslim culture.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it