Perspectives of Male Service Providers on Responding to Intimate Partner Violence in Rural Zimbabwe: Findings From Qualitative Interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite efforts made in Zimbabwe to address intimate partner violence (IPV), critical gaps still exist regarding the efficacy of IPV service provision in rural areas. This study examines male service providers’ perceptions of IPV in Chimanimani Rural District in Zimbabwe to provide guidance for policy and practice on IPV intervention in rural areas. A qualitative study was conducted with six male service providers using in-depth interviews and thematic analysis. Our findings revealed how the intersection of social norms and the geographical location of rural areas influence service providers’ perceptions of IPV and service provision. Most of the service providers interviewed had a general understanding of IPV and regarded it as unacceptable social behavior. However, constraints to service delivery typical in rural areas negatively impacted their IPV intervention, including having limited intervention resources, limited male participation, and conflicting identities (professional versus cultural identity). We conclude that service provision in rural areas is essential to respond to and prevent the occurrence of IPV, yet how service providers perceive IPV affects the quality of services rendered to victims.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".