Urgent care-seeking and injury severity for intimate partner violence during COVID-19: a Canadian retrospective chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early reports raised alarms that intimate partner violence (IPV) increased during the COVID-19 pandemic, but initial studies showed that visits to emergency departments (EDs) decreased. This study assessed the impact of the prolonged pandemic and its associated restrictions on both rates of urgent care-seeking and injury severity for IPV. METHODS: Data from the Kingston Health Sciences Centre's (KHSC) ED were utilized to compare IPV presentations during 'Pre-COVID' (December 17, 2018 - March 16, 2020) and 'COVID' (March 17, 2020 - June 16, 2021), as well as three periods of heightened local restrictions: 'Lockdown-1' (March 17 - June 12, 2020), 'Lockdown-2' (December 26, 2020 - February 10, 2021) and 'Lockdown-3' (April 8 - June 2, 2021). The primary outcomes were incidence rate of IPV visits and injury severity, which was assessed using the Clinical Injury Extent Score (CIES) and Injury Severity Score (ISS). RESULTS: A total of 128 individuals were included. This sample had mean age of 34 years, was comprised of mostly women (97%), and represented a variety of intimate relationship types. Some individuals presented multiple times, resulting in a total of 139 acute IPV presentations. The frequency of IPV visits during COVID was similar to the Pre-COVID time period (67 vs. 72; p = 0.67). Incidence rate was 13% higher during COVID, though this difference was non-significant (6.66 vs. 5.90; p = 0.47). IPV visit frequency varied across lockdown periods (11 in Lockdown-1, 12 in Lockdown-2 and 6 in Lockdown-3), with the highest incidence rate during Lockdown-2 (12.71). There were more moderate and severe injuries during COVID compared to Pre-COVID, but mean CIES was not statistically significantly different (1.91 vs. 1.69; p = 0.29), nor was mean ISS (11.88 vs. 12.52; p = 0.73). CONCLUSIONS: During the 15-months following the start of COVID-19, there were small, but non-significant increases in both incidence rate and severity of IPV presentations to the KHSC ED. This may reflect escalation of violence as pandemic restrictions persisted and requires further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".