Myths and misconceptions of intimate partner violence among sexual and gender minorities: a qualitative exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV), referring to different forms of violence or abuse between two or more intimate partners, negatively impacts physical and mental health, performance in various settings, and familial functioning, leading to long-term adverse outcomes. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals tend to experience similar or greater frequencies of IPV compared to their cisheterosexual counterparts. Stigma and discrimination toward sexual and gender diversity can lead to myths and misconceptions about relationship dynamics among SGM individuals, which can contribute to IPV occurrence within the community. This study sought to: (1) develop a compendium of myths and misconceptions that SGM individuals exposed to IPV and relevant service providers shared they encountered; (2) describe the impacts of these myths and misconceptions on SGM individuals experiencing IPV; and (3) make recommendations to address these myths and misconceptions. Methods: = 8) were interviewed using semi-structured formats. Thematic content analysis and inductive approaches were used to identify and organize findings into themes and subcategories. Findings: Five major themes related to SGM IPV myths and misconceptions were identified, touching on aspects including, but not limited to, SGM IPV prevalence, prescribed gender roles and expectations, and societal factors. Impacts and recommendations are also discussed. Significance: This appears to be the very first in-depth study describing myths and misconceptions that SGM individuals and relevant service providers have encountered in regard to SGM IPV, helping to promote understanding of SGM intimate partner relationships with particular relevance to public health and social services policies.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.004 |
| 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".