Underestimation of potentially traumatic events resulting from underreporting of physical and sexual violence among people entering care for HIV in Cameroon.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Measures ascertaining exposure to potentially traumatic events (PTEs) frequently ask respondents about experienced physical and sexual violence. However, little is known about the performance of physical and sexual violence questions on PTE assessments and its effect on PTE classification overall. We estimated underreporting of physical and sexual violence on a PTE assessment among individuals entering HIV care in Cameroon. METHOD: We compared reports of physical and sexual violence captured via a behaviorally specific measure of intimate partner violence (IPV; Demographic and Health Survey [DHS] domestic violence module = referent) to those captured via two single-item questions that assessed exposure to physical and sexual PTEs during one's adult life to determine the degree of underreporting on the single-item PTE assessment questions. We explored correlates of underreporting on the PTE assessment using Pearson's chi-squared tests. RESULTS: < .05) by one's most recent partner. CONCLUSIONS: PTE assessment tools should assess exposure to behaviorally specific acts of violence to ensure appropriate referral to services among survivors of IPV. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".