Suggestions to improve outcomes for male victims of domestic abuse: a review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Male victims of domestic abuse (DA) face a number of barriers to seeking help from their abusive relationships. Though available research has focussed primarily on exploring many of these challenges, few suggestions have been made on how to reduce or resolve them. It is necessary to establish a comprehensive plan to affect change at multiple levels in society in order to improve outcomes for this under-served population. This paper begins with a literature review examining in detail the many reasons why male victims of DA may refuse to seek help in an abusive relationship. Using the main key words, male victims combined with several common phrases related to the phenomenon of abuse including domestic abuse, domestic violence, and intimate partner violence , the review revealed several common reasons that male victims of DA refuse to seek help. These reasons include refusal or reluctance to view their experiences as abuse, hesitancy to identify with victimizing language, lack of available supportive services, embarrassment, shame, loss of masculinity, fear of being judged or disbelieved by others, fear of police response, and devotion to their family. Based on this review, a list of suggestions by the author is provided for changes that can be made to counter these barriers and improve male help-seeking. These suggestions are comprised of four broad themes: increasing public awareness, addressing the unique needs of male victims of DA, improving training for service providers, and increasing funding for services targeted to male victims of DA. A section exploring some of the unique concerns of gay, bisexual, and transgender men is included. International trends in the development and provision of services for male victims show that while increasing attention is being given to this vulnerable population, there are still significant gaps in available supports.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".