Experiences and life circumstances of unintentionally pregnant women affected by intimate partner violence—stress factors, resources, healthcare structures and needs: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This scoping review outlines the current understanding, challenges, available resources, and healthcare needs of women affected by intimate partner violence (IPV) who experience unintended pregnancy (UP). UPs are defined as unwanted, unplanned, or mistimed pregnancies. The impact of UP is multifaceted and carries several additional risks, particularly for women who experience IPV. The experiences and living conditions, including (mental) burdens, resources, care structures, and the needs of unintentionally pregnant women who have experienced IPV, remain mostly unexplored. The review will include the following criteria: (i) reproductive-aged women who have experienced IPV and UP; (ii) publications that provide detailed accounts of the experiences, circumstances, and/or needs of women with UP who have experienced IPV. This study will utilize the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and follow the PRISMA Protocol for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). A total of 2,325 papers and gray literature published from 2000 to the present were identified. 1,539 literature items were included in the title and abstract screening. Two researchers will independently choose studies, perform data extraction, and perform data synthesis. Quantitative data will be narratively summarized and qualitative data will be analyzed using thematic analysis. The findings will identify research gaps and provide insights into an important topic of reproductive healthcare and the (mental) health situation of a particularly vulnerable group. This will be useful in defining indications for researchers, professionals, and policymakers in public, mental, and reproductive health to conceptualize interdisciplinary and empirical healthcare support for affected women. Systematic review registration: Open Science Framework: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZMVPE.
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 | 0.099 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.010 |
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".