Global Prevalence and Factors Related to Intimate Partner Violence Amongst People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviews of intimate partner violence (IPV) have primarily focused on women and same-sex relationships, but little is known about the global epidemiology of IPV among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA). This review employed meta-analytic approaches to determine the worldwide prevalence and factors related to different forms of IPV among PLWHA. Databases including PubMed, Cochrane review, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, and registers, were systematically reviewed until November 5, 2021. The meta-analysis was conducted using the metafor package in R software. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool version 1 were used to assess the study quality and risk of bias, respectively. A total of 49 published articles and 42,280 participants, were included in the meta-analysis. Over their lifetime, four in ten PLWHA have experienced some type of IPV. Over a quarter have experienced physical, emotional, or psychological IPV. One in five PLWHA experienced at least one form of IPV during the recall period of last year, with emotional IPV being the most prevalent. Rates of physical and any types of IPV differed substantially between IPV measurements. IPV rates also varied significantly by the study design, with physical (29%) and sexual (18%) IPV rates being more prevalent in cross-sectional studies. Public health measures are critical for preventing and combating IPV among PLWHA. Additional cross-national research using robust sampling methods is required to obtain more representative samples and thus a more reliable prevalence estimate of IPV prevalence.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it