Perceptions of preparedness and intimate partner violence screening practices amongst hand therapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction While hand injuries are reported as common sequelae of intimate partner violence, there is limited attention to hand therapist’s screening practices and perceived preparedness to deal with intimate partner violence in hand therapy setting. The primary aim of the current study is to describe the intimate partner violence training, knowledge of referrals, perceived preparedness, and screening practices of hand therapists. Methods An online survey investigating the perceptions regarding issues pertaining to intimate partner violence was completed by a sample of 189 hand therapists. Areas addressed included intimate partner violence training, perceived preparedness to deal with intimate partner violence-related responsibilities, screening practices and knowledge of resources for referrals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics while comparisons of groups used non-parametric analyses to evaluate the impact of training, intimate partner violence experience and knowledge of referrals on preparedness and screening practices. Results Hand therapists reported low perceived preparedness scores (median = 2.1/7) and screening practices. The majority (73%) of hand therapists indicated having received no intimate partner violence training. Additionally, intimate partner violence training, intimate partner violence experience, and knowledge of referrals had significant impact on hand therapists’ perceived preparedness and screening practices. Conclusion Training is significantly related to perceived preparedness and screening practices. Intimate partner violence screening may result in clients receiving appropriate referrals leading to improved quality of life. Future research should seek out ideal methods for offering intimate partner violence training for hand therapists so that they can meet the needs of clients with intimate partner violence experience.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".