“He Stole My Meds to Get High:” The Mental Health and Well-Being of Women Abused by Intimate Partners and Their Disability Status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While population-based research confirms that women with disabilities abused by their intimate partners experience significant mental health issues, few studies compare this in intimate partner violence (IPV)-specific samples of women with or without disabilities and none analyze possible impacts based on disability type. This secondary mixed methods analysis examined 660 Canadian women (50.6% Indigenous, 43.1% White, and 6.1% visible minority) with respect to whether they reported having a disability that impacted their employability or daily living (291 or 44% yes; 369 or 56% said no). In the 291 women with disabilities, about one-third (30.7%) had a physical disability-only, one-quarter had a mental health disability-only, and 44.1% reported both physical and mental health disabilities. Women with mental health and both physical and mental health disabilities reported significantly more Severe Combined IPV on the Composite Abuse Scale, depression (CES-D-10; Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression), psychological distress (Symptom Checklist Shortform-10; SCL-10; in the clinical range), PTSD symptoms (PTSD Checklist), and lower quality of life (Quality of Life Questionnaire or QoL-9) than women without disabilities. Education about disabilities is needed for IPV advocates and disability practitioners need education about IPV. Developing services specific to survivors of IPV with disabilities is recommended.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".