Intimate partner violence: patients' experiences and perceptions in family practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand how women affected by intimate partner violence (IPV), felt their family physicians cared for them and to identify where gaps in care exist. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with ten women (mean age 50 years and minimum to maximum ages of 40-73 years). Content analysis was used to identify common themes. RESULTS: Women acknowledged a lack of insight into their abusive relationships given a lack of physical violence, preconceptions about IPV or presumed reasons their abusers had for violence. After identifying abuse, most shared feelings of fear, preventing them from disclosure. They feared being judged, not believed and consequences from their abuser. Perceptions' about their family physician's role prevented disclosure particularly misconceptions regarding physician's interest and time to discuss non-medical issues. After disclosure, women valued their family physicians listening, following up, providing validation and advocacy. All women experienced isolation secondary to the abuser, the family practice clinic, the physician and/or the 'system' itself. CONCLUSIONS: Women were not aware of family doctors' interest in issues aside from physical health. They appreciated a confidential and non-threatening environment and valued follow-up and advocacy on their behalf. They expressed frustration with open access scheduling and multiple providers. To improve care, family physicians should educate patients about their role, provide safe environments for disclosure and offer follow-up and support. Recommended system changes include measures to ensure continuity of care and easy booking of appointments. Finally, family physicians should recognize that there is a need to follow these patients long term as the effects of IPV are long lasting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".