Sexual Violence Against Persons With Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing number of large-scale studies suggest that people with disabilities are at greater risk of sexual victimization than nondisabled individuals. However, certain results are inconsistent and whether potential moderators explain this variability in previous findings remain to be considered. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the magnitude of the difference in risk of being sexually victimized based on the presence of a disability. An additional objective was to evaluate the relative influence of gender, age, type of disability, type of sexual violence, and relationship with the perpetrator on the association between the presence of a disability and sexual victimization. Studies were searched using pertinent databases and retained if they included a group with a disability, provided data that quantify the occurrence of abuse, indicated the type of sexual violence, and was published between 1970 and 2018 in French or English. A total of 68 studies, allowing 84 independent samples and 12,427 participants, were included. Individuals with disabilities were at significantly higher risk of sexual victimization than persons without disabilities (odds ratio = 2.27). The risk of sexual victimization among individuals with a disability was significantly higher in adult participants compared with the risk in minor participants. Sensory impairment was the type of disability associated with the highest risk of sexual victimization. Odds of sexual victimization among individuals with a disability were significantly higher in African countries compared with all others, and odds in Western Europe were significantly lower than in the United States. No significant differences emerged across eras.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.033 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".