Intimate partner violence and women living with episodic disabilities: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Violence towards women with disabilities is most commonly perpetrated by current or former intimate partners and more than half of disabled women experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime. Disabilities differ by presence, type, and complexity, yet are commonly researched collectively. A more nuanced understanding of the relationship between intimate partner violence and episodic disability is required to better support women living with these concurrent challenges. The objective of this scoping review is to investigate and synthesize the literature reporting on intimate partner violence for women living with an episodic disability to identify key concepts and knowledge gaps on this topic. Ultimately, this review aims to improve health services for this stigmatized group of women with episodic disabilities. METHODS: This scoping review will consider all studies that focus on women (18 years of age or older) who have experienced intimate partner violence and have an episodic disability. Episodic disabilities will include multiple sclerosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, lupus, or rheumatoid arthritis. The broad review question is what is known about intimate partner violence within the context of women living with an episodic disability? Databases to be searched include MEDLINE (OVID), CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo, and Scopus with no limits on language or time frame. Joanna Briggs Institute methodology will guide this scoping review to address the review questions outlined in the protocol. For papers that meet the inclusion criteria, data will be extracted, and findings will be presented in tables and narrative form. A PRISMA table will be included to enhance the transparency of the process. A descriptive qualitative approach to analysis will be conducted following Braun and Clarke's reflexive thematic analysis. The findings of the scoping review will be presented through a thematic narrative. DISCUSSION: Findings from this review will be used to identify important priorities for future research based on knowledge gaps and inform both health care practices and health and social interventions for women living with intimate partner violence and episodic disabilities.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".