Domestic/Family Homicide: A Systematic Review of Empirical Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Domestic/family homicide (D/FH) is a global social, economic and public health problem. To date, the research studies into risk factors associated with D/FH has largely focused on intimate partner homicide (IPH). A more contemporary approach recognizes that D/FH extends beyond the intimate partner relationship. This systematic review sought to identify and quantify the individual, relationship, community and societal factors in the empirical evidence literature on D/FH. METHODS: Eight electronic databases were searched from January 1999 to December 2020. Published journal articles on studies of D/FH were included if the study included victims and/or perpetrator of D/FH, reported risk and/or protective factors associated with D/FH, reported primary data and was published in English. Factors were descriptively synthesized by the categories of the social ecological model and D/FH sub-type. RESULTS: Three hundred and forty published articles met the inclusion criteria. From 1999 to 2020 the number of articles on D/FH increased globally from 10 to 40 respectively, declining to 23 in 2020. Almost half of the articles examined populations located in the Americas (160, 47.1%), predominately the United States and the majority of articles used quantitative designs (277, 81.5%). The forms of homicide more commonly studied were intimate partner (171, 50.3%), and filicide (98, 28.8%). Approximately 90% of articles reported individual victim and perpetrator factors, 64.7% examined relationship factors, 17.9% examined community factors and 15.6% examined societal factors. CONCLUSION: To inform universal and targeted D/FH elimination and prevention strategies, more research across different regions and a greater emphasis on community and societal-level factors is needed.
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 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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".