A comparison of intimate partner and other sexual assault survivors’ use of different types of specialized hospital-based violence services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the health service utilization of women sexually assaulted by their intimate partners, as compared with those sexually assaulted by other perpetrators. To address this gap, we describe the use of acute care services post-victimization, as well as a broad range of survivor and assault characteristics, across women assaulted by current or former intimate partners, other known assailants, and strangers. METHODS: Information was gathered from individuals presenting to 30 hospital-based sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres using a standardized data collection form. We examined the data from 619 women 16 years of age or older who were sexually assaulted by one assailant. RESULTS: Women sexually assaulted by a current or former intimate partner were less likely than those assaulted by another known assailant or a stranger to have been administered emergency contraception (p < 0.001) or prophylaxis for sexually transmitted infections (p < 0.001), and counselled for potential use of HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (p < 0.001). However, these women were more likely than those in the other two groups to have had their injuries documented with photographs (p < 0.001), have undergone a risk assessment (p = 0.008), and/or have engaged in safety planning (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women sexually assaulted by current or former intimate partners utilized services offered by sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres differently than those assaulted by other known assailants and strangers. This may reflect their different health, forensic, and social needs, as well as the importance of offering care tailored to their particular circumstances.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".