Physical, sexual and psychological intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence against women and girls: a systematic review protocol for producing global, regional and country estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In 2013, the WHO published the first global and regional estimates on physical and sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) and non-partner sexual violence (NPSV) based on a systematic review of population-based prevalence studies. In this protocol, we describe a new systematic review for the production of updated estimates for IPV and NPSV for global monitoring of violence against women, including providing the baseline for measuring Sustainable Development Goal to eliminate all forms of violence against women and girls. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The systematic review will update and extend the previous search for population-based surveys (either nationally or subnationally representative) conducted among women aged 15+ years that measured the prevalence of physical, sexual, psychological and physical and/or sexual IPV, NPSV or sexual violence by any perpetrator up to December 2019. Data will be extracted separately for all age groups, setting (urban/rural), partnership status (currently partnered/ever partnered/all women) and recall period (lifetime prevalence/past 12 months). Studies will be identified from electronic searches of online databases of EMBASE, MEDLINE, Global Health and PsycInfo. A search of national statistics office homepages will be conducted for each country to identify reports on population-based, national or subnational studies that include data on IPV or NPSV published outside academic journals. Two reviewers will be involved in quality assessment and data extraction of the review. The review is planned to be updated on a continuous basis. All findings will undergo a country consultation process. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected. This systematic review will provide a basis and a follow-up tool for global monitoring of the Sustainable Development Goal Target 5.2 on the elimination of all forms of violence against women and girls. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017054100.
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 | 0.118 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.012 |
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".