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
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.
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 | 0.021 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.058 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".