Prevalence of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence in low-income and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of children in low-income and lower-middle-income countries exposed to intimate partner violence (IPV). DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Violence and Abuse Abstracts, hand searching of specialised journals from inception until 19 May 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Primary quantitative studies that included a measure of self-reported exposure to IPV prior to age 18 and were conducted in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were screened, extracted and appraised by two independent reviewers. The prevalence estimates were pooled using a random-effects model. Outcomes included lifetime and past-year prevalence of childhood exposure to IPV. Meta-regression was used to explore heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger's regression test. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies with a total of 231 512 participants were included. Eighty-five lifetime prevalence estimates and 6 estimates of past-year prevalence were available for synthesis. The average lifetime prevalence of childhood exposure to IPV was 29% (95% CI 26% to 31%). The average past-year prevalence in children was 35% (95% CI 21% to 48%). The lifetime prevalence disaggregated by WHO regions ranged from 21% to 34%. There were no statistical differences in prevalence estimates between samples of men and women. CONCLUSION: Almost one-third of children in low-income and lower-middle-income countries have been exposed to IPV in their lifetime. There was large heterogeneity between estimates that was not explained by available study and sample characteristics. Our findings indicate that children's exposure to IPV in low-income and lower-middle-income countries is common and widespread; prevention of this major public health exposure should be a priority. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019119698.
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 | 0.012 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".