Women’s Experiences of the Intersections of Work and Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impacts of intimate partner violence (IPV) on work, workplaces, and employment are receiving increasing attention from researchers, employers, and policy makers, but research synthesis is needed to develop evidence-based strategies to address the problem. The purpose of this review of qualitative research is to explore abused women's experiences of the intersections of work and IPV, including the range of benefits and drawbacks of work. Multiple search strategies, including systematic database searches by a professional librarian, resulted in 2,306 unique articles that were independently screened for eligibility by two team members. Qualitative research articles were eligible for inclusion and were also required to (1) sample women with past and/or current IPV experience and (2) report results regarding women's experiences or views of the benefits and/or drawbacks of work. Ultimately, 32 qualitative research articles involving 757 women were included and analyzed using thematic synthesis. Results revealed the potential of work to offer survivors a great range of benefits and drawbacks, many of which have received little research attention. The importance of work for women survivors has been emphasized in the literature, often with respect to financial independence facilitating the leaving process. However, our research underscores how the impact of work for many women survivors is not straightforward and, for some, involves a "trade-off" of benefits and drawbacks. Those developing work-related interventions, services (e.g., career counseling), or policies for women who experience IPV should consider the range of benefits and drawbacks in their planning, as "one-size-fits-all" solutions are unlikely to be effective.
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 | 0.045 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".