Access to support services for individuals who experience intimate partner violence during stressful life events (SLEs) in high-income countries: Protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women, gender minorities and their children are at heightened risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) following stressful life events (SLE). The increase in IPV during the global pandemic of the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) is recent evidence. Studies have linked IPV to poor health, resulting in lower mental, physical, sexual, and reproductive health outcomes. IPV has also been shown as a barrier to labour force participation, leading to negative socioeconomic outcomes (i.e., low or no employment). Formal and informal supports help individuals who experience IPV, but it is unclear if and how these are being accessed during SLEs such as environmental disasters, pandemics, and economic recessions. Accessibility to programs is an issue in normal times because of stigma, social norms, and lack of knowledge; this has been further amplified by situations where individuals who experience violence are isolated physically and emotionally, as well as face controlling behaviours by their perpetrators of violence. This scoping review will be used to conduct a comprehensive review of literature and address the research question: What is known in published literature about access to services by individuals who experience IPV during stressful life events in high-income countries? METHODS: The following electronic databases will be searched for relevant publications: MEDILINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), PsychINfo (OVID), CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (EBSCO), Gender Watch (ProQuest), Web of Science and Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ProQuest). Key terms and medical subject headings (MeSH) will be based on previous literature and consult with an expert librarian. The major concepts include 'stressful life events' AND intimate partner violence' AND 'access to services'. Google, Google Scholar, and the WHO website will be used to search for grey literature, books/chapters, and programme reports as well as references of relevant reviews. Studies will be screened and extracted by two reviewers and conflicts resolved through discussion or a third reviewer. Both quantitative and qualitative analysis of relevant data will outline key findings. DISCUSSION: The scoping review will provide synthesized and summarized findings on literature regarding access to informal and formal social supports by victims of IPV during SLEs (i.e., pandemics and natural/environmental disasters/emergencies, economic recessions) where possible, highlighting key barriers, facilitators and lessons learned. Findings have potential to inform programs, policies, and interventions on accessibility to necessary support and health services during disasters.
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 | 0.043 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.007 |
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".