Knowledge and Attitudes Towards the Care for Women Subjected to Intimate Partner Violence Among Nurses in the Western Province of Sri Lanka
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is recognised as a global health and societal issue. Poor knowledge and attitudes among nurses in providing care to women experiencing IPV have been reported in previous studies. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted among a stratified random sample of 407 female nurses working in 17 hospitals in the Western Province of Sri Lanka using a pretested questionnaire developed by the investigators. Ethical approval was obtained from Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura. Cut off mark for good knowledge ≥ 60 was decided by an expert panel using modified Delphi Technique. Descriptive and inferential statistics were performed using SPSS version 21. The mean age of participants was 38.6(±7.9) years. Most (85%) had ‘poor’ overall knowledge about IPV. Knowledge scores were high in the domains of; acts indicating IPV (Mean80±SD28.2), presenting complaints of survivors of IPV (74.6±24.4), reasons preventing disclosure (81.4±19.6), reasons for women staying in violent relationships (79.2±23.1) and contribution of a nurse in providing support for women experiencing IPV (67.8±15.6). Lower levels of mean knowledge were evident in the domains of, root causes of IPV (49.7±19.0), non-health consequences (53.5±24.0), laws pertaining to IPV(31.0±25.9), services available in state sector (19.1±25.07) and in non-state sector (7.4± 22.1) and principles in providing women-centred care (33.7±26.5). More than a half (54%) of the participants had ‘good’ overall attitudes which were evident in mean scores for inquiring about IPV (91%), offering assistance though there is a lack of resources (79.8%) and maintaining confidentiality (57%). However, 34% agreed that violence by a husband is justifiable if the wife behaves in a way to provoke him, and 36% agreed that women should tolerate violence for the sake of their children. The findings indicate the urgent need for health authorities to educate practising nurses and incorporate relevant content in nursing curricula to enable them to recognise and support women experiencing IPV within the multidisciplinary teams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".