Integration of Primary Health-Care Services in Women’s Shelters: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women who have experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) have significant detrimental physical and mental health consequences associated with the violence as well as numerous barriers to health-care and social service utilization. Service integration offers a solution to help support women who have experienced violence overcome negative health consequences as well as barriers to system navigation and use. The purpose of this scoping review was to examine research activity pertaining to IPV and primary health-care and women's shelters integration. Namely, the aim was to determine the extent, range, and nature of research related to the effects of integrating primary health-care services and women's shelters. Nineteen sources were identified as potentially relevant from four electronic databases, with four articles meeting the inclusion criteria of integration of primary health-care and women's shelter services where outcomes were presented related to the efficacy of primary health-care received and integration. Numerical analysis revealed considerable homogeneity among articles in terms of methodological approaches, patient populations, and type of integration. Inductive thematic content analysis revealed three themes that resulted from integration: (1) increased access to and acceptability of services, (2) bridge back to health-care, and (3) decreasing future health-care burden. The findings from this scoping review represent a first attempt to summarize the literature, indicate a need for additional research, and suggest implications for practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".