MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220899140 · doi:10.1177/15248380211069059

Examining the Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Feasibility of Virtually Delivered Trauma-Focused Domestic Violence and Sexual Violence Interventions: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

2022· review· en· W4220899140 on OpenAlexafffund
Winta Ghidei, Stephanie Montesanti, Karlee Tomkow, Peter H. Silverstone, Lana Wells, Sandy Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueTrauma Violence & Abuse · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWorkers Compensation Board of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychological interventionDomestic violenceSexual violenceMedicineIntervention (counseling)Poison controlSuicide preventionPsychologyPsychiatryNursingMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced a rapid shift to virtual delivery of treatment and care to individuals affected by domestic violence and sexual violence. A rapid evidence assessment (REA) was undertaken to examine the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of trauma-focused virtual interventions for persons affected by domestic violence and sexual violence. The findings from this review will provide guidance for service providers and organizational leaders with the implementation of virtual domestic violence and sexual violence-focused interventions. The REA included comprehensive search strategies and systematic screening of and relevant articles. Papers were included into this review (1) if they included trauma-focused interventions; (2) if the intervention was delivered virtually; and (3) if the article was published in the English-language. Twenty-one papers met inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Findings from the rapid review demonstrate that virtual interventions that incorporate trauma-focused treatment are scarce. Online interventions that incorporate trauma-focused treatment for this at-risk group are limited in scope, and effectiveness data are preliminary in nature. Additionally, there is limited evidence of acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness of virtual interventions for ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse populations experiencing domestic violence and sexual violence. Accessing virtual interventions was also highlighted as a barrier to among participants in studies included in the review. Despite the potential of virtual interventions to respond to the needs of individuals affected by domestic violence and/or sexual violence, the acceptability and effectiveness of virtual trauma-focused care for a diverse range of populations at risk of violence are significantly understudied.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.131
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.376
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.695

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1310.376
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.013
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.200
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrauma Violence & AbuseSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207