Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and behavioral problems in children and adolescents: a meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the association of intimate partner violence during the gestational period and the development of externalizing and internalizing behavioral problems in children and adolescents. Source of data A meta‐analysis of cohort and case–control studies was performed, using studies selected from electronic databases. Eligible studies included women who experienced intimate partner violence during pregnancy and their children's behavioral problems. These problems encompass two groups: externalizing problems (expressed by hyperactivity, aggressive and challenging behavior, and delinquency) and internalizing problems (represented by depressive moods, anxiety, and somatic symptoms). The risk of bias was assessed by the Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS) and the quality of evidence by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RevMan 5.3 software was used for the meta‐analysis. Data synthesis Of the 687 eligible articles, only seven met all inclusion criteria and consisted of 12,250 mother/child pairs. The age range of the assessed children varied from 10 months to 16 years. The odds of internalizing problems in children exposed to prenatal violence were two‐fold higher (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.17–3.76) and that of externalizing problems were 1.9‐fold higher (95% CI: 1.28–2.83), when compared to children of unexposed mothers. Conclusion The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that women's exposure to intimate partner violence during pregnancy may be associated with behavioral problems of their children, emphasizing the need for greater understanding about the vulnerability of children to adversity in early ages.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".