Intimate partner violence in early adolescence: The role of gender, socioeconomic factors and the school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) among adolescents is common worldwide, but our understanding of perpetration, gender differences and the role of social-ecological factors remains limited. OBJECTIVES: To explore the prevalence of physical and sexual IPV perpetration and victimisation by gender, and associated risk and protective factors. METHODS: Young adolescents (N=2 839) from 41 randomly selected public high schools in the Western Cape region of South Africa (SA), participating in the PREPARE study, completed a self-administered questionnaire. RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 13.65 years (standard deviation 1.01), with 19.1% (541/2 839) reporting being victims/survivors of IPV and 13.0% (370/2 839) reporting perpetrating IPV. Girls were less likely to report being a victim/survivor of physical IPV (odds ratio (OR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 - 0.92) and less likely to be a perpetrator of sexual IPV than boys (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.21 - 0.52). Factors associated with perpetration of physical and sexual IPV were similar and included being a victim/survivor (physical IPV: OR 12.42; 95% CI 8.89 - 17.36, sexual IPV: OR 20.76; 95% CI 11.67 - 36.93), being older (physical IPV: OR 1.26; 95% CI 1.08 - 1.47, sexual IPV: OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.14 - 1.62 ), having lower scores on school connectedness (physical IPV: OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 - 0.75, sexual IPV: OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 - 0.76) and scoring lower on feelings of school safety (physical IPV: OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.57 - 0.77, sexual IPV: OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.40 - 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: Physical and sexual IPV was commonly reported among young adolescents in SA. Further qualitative exploration of the role of reciprocal violence by gender is needed, and the role of 'school climate'-related factors should be taken into account when developing preventive interventions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".