Intimate partner violence and pregnancy spacing: results from a meta-analysis of individual participant time-to-event data from 29 low-and-middle-income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Inadequately spaced pregnancies, defined as pregnancies fewer than 18 months apart, are linked to maternal, infant, and child morbidity and mortality, and adverse social, educational and economic outcomes in later life for women and children. Quantifying the relation between intimate partner violence (IPV) and women's ability to space and time their pregnancies is an important part of understanding the burden of disease related to IPV. METHODS: We applied Cox proportional hazards models to monthly data from the Demographic and Health Surveys' Reproductive Health Calendar to compare interpregnancy intervals for women who experienced physical, sexual and/or emotional IPV in 29 countries. We conducted a one-stage meta-analysis to identify the periods when women who experienced IPV were at the highest risk of unintended and incident pregnancy, and a two-stage meta-analysis to explore cross-country variations in the magnitude of the relation between women's experience of IPV and pregnancy spacing. RESULTS: For the one-stage analysis, considering 52 959 incident pregnancies from 90 446 women, which represented 232 394 person-years at risk, women's experience of IPV was associated with a 51% increase in the risk of pregnancy (95% CI 1.38 to 1.66), although this association decreased over time. When limiting our inference to unintended pregnancies that resulted in live births, women's experience of IPV was associated with a 30% increase in the risk of unintended pregnancy (95% CI 1.25 to 1.34; n=13 541 pregnancies, 92 848 women, 310 319 person-years at risk). In the two-stage meta-analyses, women's experience of IPV was associated with a 13% increase in the probability of incident pregnancy (95% CI 1.07 to 1.20) and a 28% increase in the likelihood of unintended pregnancy (95% CI 1.19 to 1.38). CONCLUSIONS: Across countries, women's experience of IPV is associated with a reduction in time between pregnancies and an increase in the risk of unintended pregnancy; the magnitude of this effect varied by country and over time.
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 | 0.021 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.049 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".