MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2536418396

50 – KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES IN THE CLINICAL IDENTIFICATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN: A SURVEY OF SURGEON MEMBERS OF THE ORTHOPAEDIC TRAUMA ASSOCIATION

2011· article· en· W2536418396 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sheila Sprague, Gregory Della Rocca, Sonia Dosanjh, Emil H. Schemitsch, Mohit Bhandari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violenceMedicineSpousePsychological interventionFamily medicineOccupational safety and healthSurgeon generalSuicide preventionOrthopedic surgeryPublic healthPoison controlInjury preventionTrauma centerPsychiatryMedical emergencyNursingSurgeryRetrospective cohort study
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: In recent years, there has been an increased appreciation of the importance of intimate partner violence (IPV), which is also known as domestic violence, spouse abuse, and battering, as a serious public health problem. Domestic violence is the most common cause of nonfatal injury to women in North America. As providers of musculoskeletal care and first-contact health care practitioners for many patients, orthopaedic surgeons should be knowledgeable regarding screening and possible interventions for IPV victims. The Canadian Orthopaedic Association and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons have both prepared explicit statements that orthopaedic surgeons should play a role in the screening and appropriate identification of victims of IPV. We aimed to identify the knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about IPV among orthopaedic surgeons who are members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association. Method: We surveyed members of the Orthopaedic Trauma Association to identify attitudes toward IPV by posting a survey on the Orthopaedic Trauma Association website for its membership to complete. The survey consisted of three sections: 1. the general attitude of the orthopaedic surgeon toward intimate partner violence, 2. the attitude of the orthopaedic surgeon toward victims and batterers, and 3. the clinical relevance of intimate partner violence in orthopaedic surgery. Results: One-hundred-and-fifty-three orthopaedic surgeons responded. The majority of the respondents were male (99%) with practices in North America (96%). Surgeons underestimated the prevalence of IPV in their practices and communities and manifested several key misconceptions: 1. victims must be getting something out of the abusive relationships (16%); 2. some women have personalities that cause the abuse (20%); and 3. the battering would stop if the batterer quite abusing alcohol (40%). In the past year, approximately half of the surgeons (50.8%) acknowledged identification of a victim of IPV; however, only 4.0% of respondents currently screened for IPV among female patients with injuries. Surgeons expressed concerns about lack of knowledge in the management of abused women (30%) Guidelines for the detection and management of IPV were uncommon in most surgeons’ practices (7.8%). Conclusion: There is a strong rationale for addressing IPV as an issue that is relevant to the field of orthopaedic surgery just as it has been shown to be relevant to primary care, emergency medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology. Our study found that orthopaedic surgeons underestimated the prevalence of IPV in their practices, held multiple misperceptions about IPV, and demonstrated discomfort in identifying and treating IPV. Targeted educational programs on IPV are needed for surgeons who routinely care for injured women.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→