Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Against HIV-Positive Women in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To systematically analyze and summarize the literature on intimate partner violence (IPV) against HIV-positive women in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) and to identify their risk factors for IPV. METHOD: A comprehensive review of the literature using the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) yielded 1,879 articles (PubMed = 1,251, Embase = 491, Web of Science = 132, and identified additional records = 5). Twenty were selected for quantitative and qualitative assessment and synthesis. We employed a random effects model with generic inverse variance method and estimated the odds ratios. FINDINGS: Results indicated a high prevalence of physical, sexual, and emotional violence against women living with HIV/AIDS in SSA. Educational background, alcohol use, marital status, previous experiences with IPV, and employment status were identified as significant risk factors. We also assessed the methodological quality of the articles by examining publication bias and some heterogeneity statistics. CONCLUSION: There is limited research on IPV against HIV-positive women in SSA. However, the few existing studies agree on the importance of targeting HIV-positive women with specific interventions given their vulnerability to IPV and to address factors exacerbating these risks and vulnerabilities.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it