MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319294432 · doi:10.1177/10901981231152425

Intimate Partner Violence and Health Outcomes Among Women Living With HIV/AIDS in Ghana: A Cross-Sectional Study

2023· article· en· W4319294432 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Y. Tenkorang, Adobea Yaa Owusu, Mariama Zaami, Susan Langmagne, Sylvia Esther Gyan

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychosocialMedicineReproductive healthCross-sectional studySexual violencePoison controlSexual abuseEnvironmental healthSuicide preventionPsychiatryPopulationNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is known to have negative health consequences for victims. For women living with HIV/AIDS, whose health may be compromised, exposure to IPV can be devastating. Yet few (if any) studies have explored the health implications of exposure to IPV among HIV-positive women. We begin to fill this gap by examining the effects of various dimensions of IPV (physical, sexual, psychological/emotional, and economic) on the cardiovascular, psychosocial, and sexual reproductive health outcomes of HIV-positive women in Ghana. Data were collected from a cross-section of 538 HIV-positive women aged 18 years and older in the Lower Manya Krobo District in the Eastern Region. We used logit models to explore relationships between IPV and health. The findings indicate high prevalence of IPV in our sample: physical violence (61%), sexual violence (50.9%), emotional/psychological violence (79.6%), and economic violence (66.8%). Generally, participants with experiences of IPV reported cardiovascular health problems, unwanted pregnancies and pregnancy loss, and poor psychosocial health. Our findings suggest the importance of screening for IPV as part of HIV care in Ghana.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.377 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education & BehaviorSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207