How Thai Women Manage Living in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there is literature that describes coping strategies of women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV), the definitions of common coping strategies and the two-dimensional model of coping styles (emotion-or problem-focused) may not fully delineate how these women manage their day-to-day lives. Using an Interpretive Description method and feminist standpoint principles, in-depth interviews were conducted with 40 Thai women regarding how they managed living in the context of IPV. Data were analyzed using an iterative thematic analysis procedure. In this study, the highly changeable and adaptive strategies use by participants could not be easily categorized into emotion-or action/problem-focused. Indeed, the strategies used by Thai women in this study were better described as survival focused. Based on our analysis, the process of managing their day-to-day life in the context of IPV revealed six major themes: keeping silent, disconnect between the fantasy of love and reality, seeking emotional support, ambivalence surrounding leaving, living with negative emotions, and despair and suicide. An undercurrent that was woven throughout multiple themes was the dominant lens of motherhood through which women made day-to-day decisions. These data also highlight the specific impacts that Thai society and religious beliefs have on increasing the risk of IPV and maintaining its duration. All levels of government, religious leaders, and public policy makers must engage in intersectoral initiatives to make public what is now private. Social and health service providers must create safe spaces where women can disclose IPV and where they can get funded multilevel supports to help them live independent of violence. The participants' stories give voice to why Thai health professionals need to fully engage with women to understand the past and current contexts of women's lives and how their experiences impact their health.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".