Chiropractors' Perceptions About Intimate Partner Violence: A Cross-Sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess chiropractors' attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, and experience about intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was developed by members of the Violence Against Women Health Research Collaborative. The survey was disseminated to a voluntary, nonrandom convenience sample of chiropractors attending a 3-day continuing education seminar. Surveys were distributed at the entrances of the seminar session rooms and placed on luncheon tables. Respondents returned surveys to collection boxes. RESULTS: Ninety-three doctors of chiropractic completed the survey. Respondents estimated that only 5.2% (95% confidence interval, 3.3%-7.0%) of their female patients were victims of IPV. General knowledge of IPV was good among respondents. Knowledge of clinical indicators and victim's management was fair to poor. Only 22% of respondents identified the most commonly injured body regions among battered women. Lack of knowledge, personal discomfort, and time constraints were all cited as barriers to IPV screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey indicates that doctors of chiropractic underestimate the prevalence of IPV among their female patients. Like other health care specialists, chiropractors cite multiple IPV screening barriers, especially lack of knowledge. Doctors of chiropractic would benefit from education and training in IPV to enable them to better identify and assist patients who are victims of IPV.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".