Gender-based violence syndemics in global health: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global guidance indicates that protections for gender and equity issues, such as gender-based violence (GBV), should be mainstreamed across sectors. One novel strategy that can be leveraged to illustrate the cross-cutting impacts of GBV is to investigate GBV syndemically. This systematic review identified, evaluated, and synthesized quantitative studies conducted in LMICs that tested syndemic theories involving GBV. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature was conducted in Medline, Global Health, Scopus, Anthro Source, Anthropology Plus, Web of Science, PsychInfo, and Gender Watch. Peer-reviewed empirical research published in English that used quantitative methods to test syndemic theories involving GBV in LMICs were included. 4068 references were retrieved, 2160 studies were screened against their titles/abstracts, and 227 studies were assessed for full text eligibility. Overall, 45 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most articles conceptualized GBV as an exposure that clustered with other epidemics. More than half of the evidence base investigated combinations of GBV, mental health, substance use, and HIV/AIDS. Research articles investigating the SAVA syndemic among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women provided the strongest evidence, particularly in India. Notable analytical gaps pertained to GBV measurement challenges and statistical approaches to test contextual factors in LMICs. The current evidence base is predominantly focused on GBV syndemic models that inform response/harm mitigation efforts rather than prevention. Future research should concentrate on how the political environment perpetuates clustering and interactions, expanding the contexts studied beyond upper middle-income countries, and improving methodological rigor in terms of GBV measurement. • Syndemic theory posits that epidemics do not occur in isolation of one another and the wider context. • Global health research demonstrates that GBV is syndemic with HIV and substance use. • This systematic review synthesized studies that quantitatively tested GBV syndemics in LMICs. • GBV syndemics involving perpetration, maternal-child health co-morbidities, and in humanitarian settings were less studied. • Future research should focus on integrating context and robustly estimating the population prevalence of clustering.
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 | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".