MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808776688 · doi:10.1177/1524838018781105

Integration of Primary Health-Care Services in Women’s Shelters: A Scoping Review

2018· review· en· W2808776688 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Mantler, Kimberley T. Jackson, Edmund J. Walsh

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThematic analysisDomestic violenceHealth careMental healthInclusion (mineral)NursingIntegrated carePsychologyQualitative researchMedicinePoison controlEnvironmental healthSuicide preventionPsychiatrySocial psychologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207