A systematic review of various interventions on domestic violence in pregnant women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature search, G -Funds CollectionBackground.Domestic violence comes in various forms, such as psychological, verbal, sexual, etc., and during pregnancy it has many complications, including maternal and foetal.Objectives.This study aimed to investigate a variety of interventions performed concerning domestic violence and its dimensions in pregnant women in a systematic review.Material and methods.The databases of Scopus, PubMed, SID and Web of Science were searched for the observational and interventional studies published in Persian and English examining interventions in domestic violence cases in pregnant women.The used keywords were "Domestic violence, Intervention, Pregnancy and other areas of violence".Unrelated and common cases were eliminated from 6,056 retrieved studies, and finally, the remaining articles consisted of 1, 6 and 11 articles concerning emotional, psychological and social interventions, respectively, along with 7 review articles. Results.Studies have shown that most interventions are related to the emotional, psychological and social domains.The principles of interpersonal psychotherapy and rehabilitation counselling were emphasised in the psychological domain.In the social domain, most of the reviewed interventions indicated that researchers' efforts and the type of interventions were mostly based on social support, which is based on the structure and framework ranging from one's family level to society.Social applications of increasing women's health and safety were introduced through increasing effective interaction with healthcare providers, increasing the adoption of safety behaviours and improving providers' ability to detect domestic violence. Conclusions.According to the reviewed studies, an integrated care system should be used that can encompass all effective factors in preventive interventions and continuous and effective care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".