The Implementation of the Advocacy Intervention for Midlife and Older Women Who Have Experienced Intimate Partner Violence: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Midlife and older women who experience intimate partner violence (IPV) often have less access to supports and services than younger women. There is far less focus on research and supports for midlife and older women compared to younger women experiencing IPV, and often, neither elder abuse nor IPV services meet their needs. Few interventions are available to meet the needs of midlife and older women. OBJECTIVE The goal of this randomized controlled trial is to test the effectiveness of an advocacy intervention for midlife and older women who experience IPV and to learn from the experiences of those who implement and participate in the program. METHODS This trial is a 2-arm, unblinded, parallel, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a qualitative component. Eligible participants will be women who live in the Maritime provinces of Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island), who are in midlife and older (aged approximately ≥50 years), and who are currently in a relationship with an abusive partner or have recently left an abusive partner. Facilitators will be trained to deliver the intervention. The intervention will be entirely virtual and will consist of 2 components: (1) an empowerment component, which will involve sharing resources and information with the women; and (2) a social support component, which will include providing support and encouragement to women for 12 weeks. Quantitative effectiveness data will be collected from all trial participants at baseline, 3 months after the intervention, and 9 months after the intervention about the incidence and severity of IPV, physical and mental health, and safety behaviors and strategies. Qualitative interviews will be conducted with the facilitators and intervention group participants. Control group participants will receive a static, nontailored version of the advocacy intervention for midlife and older women (AIM) intervention materials after baseline data collection. RESULTS A total of 12 facilitators have been trained to deliver the AIM intervention to trial participants. Participant recruitment and data collection will be completed in January 2025. Data analysis will continue throughout the data collection period, and the results will be disseminated by December 2025. CONCLUSIONS This research will result in the adaptation and testing of a program to support and empower midlife and older women in the Maritime provinces of Canada who experience IPV. CLINICALTRIAL International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Registry ISRCTN30646991; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN30646991 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/57886
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | high |
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 | 0.046 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.120 | 0.018 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".