MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037939617 · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100423

When pandemics clash: Gendered violence-related traumatic brain injuries in women since COVID-19

2020· article· en· W3037939617 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eve M. Valera

Bibliographic record

VenueEClinicalMedicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Medical Rehabilitation ResearchDefense and Veterans Brain Injury CenterOffice of Research on Women's HealthNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeCenter for Neuroscience and Regenerative MedicineNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsDomestic violenceMedicineScopusPsychological interventionPoison controlInjury preventionHarmSuicide preventionPsychiatryMedical emergencyMEDLINEPsychologySocial psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent articles highlight reports of escalating rates of domestic violence (DV) in numerous countries including, for example, a 300% increase in police reports of intimate-partner violence (IPV) likely fuelled by effects and mitigation strategies of COVID-19.[1]Peterman A. Potts A. O'Donnell M. et al.Pandemics and violence against women and children.Center Global Dev Work Paper. 2020; 528 (DC: Center for Global Development)Google Scholar Left out of these reports is any mention of a possibly coincident surge in one of IPV's most dangerous yet often overlooked consequences, traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). All clinicians need to be aware of this in order to ensure optimal interventions and avoid additional harm. Approximately one in four women experience severe IPV,[2]Breiding M.J. Chen J. Black M.C Intimate partner violence in the United States — 2010.in: GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta2014Google Scholar with most recorded injuries to the neck and higher,[3]Wu V. Huff H. Bhandari M Pattern of physical injury associated with intimate partner violence in women presenting to the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Trauma Violence Abuse. 2010; 11: 71-82Crossref PubMed Scopus (143) Google Scholar including frequent high-impact forces to the head.[4]Valera E.M. Kucyi A. Brain injury in women experiencing intimate partner-violence: neural mechanistic evidence of an “invisible” trauma.Brain Imaging Behav. 2017; 11: 1664-1677Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar Data suggest staggeringly high rates of IPV-related TBIs even under “normal” conditions.[4]Valera E.M. Kucyi A. Brain injury in women experiencing intimate partner-violence: neural mechanistic evidence of an “invisible” trauma.Brain Imaging Behav. 2017; 11: 1664-1677Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, [5]Valera E.M. Berenbaum H. Brain injury in battered women.J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71: 797-804Crossref PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar In COVID-19 conditions, as violence escalates, women who may want to escape may not have the option due to mitigation strategies or contamination fears, likely resulting in more severe forms of abuse including TBIs. IPV-related TBIs have been linked to poorer cognitive, psychological, and neural health.[4]Valera E.M. Kucyi A. Brain injury in women experiencing intimate partner-violence: neural mechanistic evidence of an “invisible” trauma.Brain Imaging Behav. 2017; 11: 1664-1677Crossref PubMed Scopus (80) Google Scholar, [5]Valera E.M. Berenbaum H. Brain injury in battered women.J Consult Clin Psychol. 2003; 71: 797-804Crossref PubMed Scopus (122) Google Scholar However, women are often unaware they have sustained TBIs or understand the importance of reporting them. Consequently, post-TBI symptoms – such as depression, anxiety, cognitive, or sleep difficulties - may be misinterpreted as psychological responses to the abuse resulting in misdiagnoses, inappropriate treatment, and unsuccessful outcomes. It is every clinician's responsibility to screen for IPV-related TBI. Couching questions in the context of COVID-19 as a risk factor for violence may reduce stigma associated with being abused. Screening can be as simple as inquiring about partner-related hits, jolts or forces to the head that resulted in an alteration or change in consciousness as indicated by a loss of consciousness (even if very brief), disorientation, confusion, memory loss, dizziness, or seeing stars or spots. If IPV-related TBI appears to be likely, referral to a neurologist or concussion specialist should be made. This will provide women with an opportunity to obtain information about sequelae of TBIs, and understand that problems they may have with anxiety, depression, cognition or sleep, may be related to TBIs rather than merely “psychological stress.” We need to inform women of the dangers of IPV-related TBI and offer them resources. The clash of IPV and COVID-19 has created a perfect storm for an increase in this “invisible trauma.” If we do not act now, we risk facing yet another pandemic of women who are struggling to live with the effects of likely undiagnosed TBIs. Dr. Valera reports grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from Rappaport Fellowship, during the conduct of the study; grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from Rappaport Fellowship, outside the submitted work; Dr. Valera reports grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from Rappaport Fellowship, from Canadian Concussion Centre at The Krembil Neuroscience Centre, from Ontario Brain Injury Association, from Oatley Vigmond Law Firm, from Learning Network at the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children (CREVAWC) and Western University, from Quebec Women's Shelter Association, from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, from Santa Clara Superior Court, from NINDS, CNRM, DVBIC, NCMRR, NICHD, and ORWH, from Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, from The CACTIS Foundation, Sojourner centre, University of Arizona College of Medicine, during the conduct of the study; grants from National Institutes of Health, grants from Rappaport Fellowship, from Canadian Concussion Centre at The Krembil Neuroscience Centre, from Ontario Brain Injury Association, from Oatley Vigmond Law Firm, from Learning Network at the Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children (CREVAWC) and Western University, from Quebec Women's Shelter Association, from Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, from Santa Clara Superior Court, from NINDS, CNRM, DVBIC, NCMRR, NICHD, and ORWH, from Institute on Violence, Abuse and Trauma, from The CACTIS Foundation, Sojourner centre, University of Arizona College of Medicine, outside the submitted work; none. None

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEClinicalMedicineSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207