Impacts of Peer Support on Coping and Cortisol Levels for Women Affected by Domestic Violence and Coercive Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Gendered domestic violence and coercive control are prevalent public heath concerns in Canada with dire consequences for survivors. Peer support groups may address and reduce negative impacts of domestic violence and coercive control on women's stress, coping, safety, and alliances with social support network members, the focus of this study. METHODS: A one-group, pre-test/post-test quasi-experimental study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of Growth Circle, a 14-week peer support program offered at an agency serving women affected by domestic violence in a major western Canadian city. Through convenience sampling, women 18 years and older who experienced domestic violence were recruited and provided data on stress, coping, safety-related empowerment, and social support/alliances. Thirty-five participants provided all pre-test and post-test data, with a subsample of 14 providing repeated hair samples. Hair was employed to determine stress hormone (cortisol) levels. RESULTS: A significant reduction in self-reported levels of perceived stress and stress hormone levels following completion of the Growth Circle program was revealed. Participants also reported a significant increase in safety-related empowerment, and supportive alliances with group members. CONCLUSIONS: The Growth Circle peer support program was demonstrated to be effective. Further implementation and research into the Growth Circle program across Canada 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".