An ecological study on the association between early childhood caries and intimate partner violence in 20 low- and middle-income countries: 2007-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Background:</ns4:bold> Women are the worst affected by intimate partner violence (IPV), and this impacts negatively on the health of the children they care for. This study aimed to determine the associations between IPV and the prevalence of early childhood caries (ECC) in 3-5-year-olds. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods:</ns4:bold> This was an ecological study using IPV (physical, sexual, emotional) data extracted from the Demographic Health Survey of 20 low- and middle-income countries and ECC data for 3-5-year-olds of the same countries for the period 2007-2017. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between the percentage of 3-5-year-olds with ECC (outcome variable) and IPV indicators (physical, sexual, emotional). The model was adjusted for the country’s gross national income and the percentage of women with secondary or higher education. Partial eta squared (ηp <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> ), regression coefficients, confidence intervals and p-values were calculated. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Results:</ns4:bold> Data on ECC in 3-5-year-olds and IPV were available for six low-income-countries, 10 lower-middle-income-countries and four upper-middle-income-countries. The most prevalent form of IPV was physical violence (10.09%). The Democratic Republic of Congo had the highest prevalence of physical violence (45.8%), sexual violence (25.4%), and ECC (80.0%). The strongest association was between the prevalence of ECC and emotional violence (ηp <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> =0.01), followed by physical violence (ηp <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> =0.005), and sexual violence (ηp <ns4:sup>2</ns4:sup> =0.003). For every 1% higher prevalence of emotional violence, there was 0.28% higher prevalence of ECC, and for every 1% higher percentage of physical violence, there was 0.21% higher prevalence of ECC. On the contrary, for every 1% higher prevalence of sexual violence, there was 0.35% lower prevalence of ECC prevalence. </ns4:p> <ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusions:</ns4:bold> Emotional and sexual violence where the two types of IPV associated with the prevalence of ECC. The associations were minor and the directions of their effects were difference. These findings need to be studied further. </ns4:p>
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".