MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380626987 · doi:10.1177/16094069231183763

Experiences of Gender-Based Violence Among Disabled Women: A Qualitative Systematic Review and Meta-Synthesis Protocol

2023· article· en· W4380626987 on OpenAlexafffund
Ami Goulden, Stephanie L. Baird, Kristen Romme, Laura Pacheco, Sarah Norris, Deborah Norris, Lisa Faye, Sierra MacNeil, Joshua Pittman

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsCommunity Sector Council Newfoundland and LabradorDalhousie UniversityMount Saint Vincent UniversityWestern UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsycINFOGrey literatureQualitative researchSystematic reviewThematic analysisMEDLINEData extractionPsychologyMedical educationMedicineSociologySocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Gender-based violence (GBV) is a major public health concern and a human rights issue disproportionately affecting disabled women. Disabled women are twice as likely to experience GBV than nondisabled women, yet there has been a lack of attention to this issue. This review aims to gain a greater understanding of the experiences of GBV of disabled women through a systematic and qualitative meta-synthesis. The qualitative meta-synthesis will be conducted by a research team of academic and community members and students with varying lived and service provider experiences with disabilities and GBV. The study findings aim to promote best practices by offering solutions to increase accessible and inclusive resources and services responsive to disabled women. Methods A systematic review of qualitative studies will be performed based on searches of 12 academic databases, including MEDLINE (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), Sociological Abstracts (ProQuest), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), and SocINDEX (EBSCO). A search of the gray literature will be performed by searching the Google search engine, Google Scholar, the Community Health Online Digital Archive and Research Resource (CHODARR), and the Global Database on Violence Against Women. In addition to the database and gray literature searching, we will complete backward and forward citation tracing. Two research team members will be involved in all screening, review, data extraction, and quality assessment of studies. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreements and consult with the research team. Thematic synthesis steps will include becoming familiar with the data, developing a thematic framework, indexing the data to identify themes and codes, charting the data, and mapping and interpreting the data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist will be used to appraise the quality of included studies. Confidence in the meta-synthesis findings will be assessed by applying the GRADECERQual approach. Review Registration This protocol is registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42023400410.

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)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.514
GPT teacher head0.629
Teacher spread0.115 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207