‘It's so beneficial to be able to stop the cycle’: Perceptions of intergenerational transmission of violence and parenting practices among pregnant women and their abusive partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to explore how pregnant women who experience Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) and men who commit DVA understand the impact of their childhood environment on their current parenting practices and how a DVA psychological intervention may shape their parenting.Methods: Repeated individual qualitative interviews were conducted with pregnant mothers and fathers who reported DVA and were taking part in a psychological intervention to address DVA. Interviews were carried out at the start (during pregnancy) and end of the intervention (two years post-childbirth). Reflexive Thematic Analysis was used to analyse interviews. Results: 56 interviews (26 mothers; 13 fathers) were analysed. Five themes were identified: (1) Acknowledging childhood experiences of DVA; (2) The scars of traumatic experiences; (3) Challenging the silencing of abuse; (4) The transmission of parenting styles and behaviours from one generation to another; (5) Becoming the best parent one can be. Ninety-one percent of the participants providing information on their childhood family environment experienced at least one adverse childhood experience (ACE) and the intergenerational transmission of violence was identifiable in most narratives. Despite this, several participants described skills they acquired during the intervention (e.g., emotional regulation strategies) as assisting in interrupting violence and improving their relationships with their children.Conclusions: Participants with at least one ACE identified it as one of several risk factors for DVA in adulthood and how the intergenerational transmission of violence and poor parenting practices may be mitigated through trauma-informed, targeted interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".