MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407207494 · doi:10.1136/bmjph-2024-001405

Women’s experiences of gender-based violence supports through an intersectional lens: a global scoping review

2025· article· en· W4407207494 on OpenAlexafffund
Beverley M. Essue, Cyndirela Chadambuka, Amaya Perez‐Brumer, Isabel Arruda‐Caycho, Danielle Tocallino, Rebecca Balasa, Prossy Kiddu Namyalo, Carmina Ravanera, Sarah Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersWomen and Gender Equality CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsIntersectionalityInclusion (mineral)PovertyDomestic violenceSocial supportQualitative researchPsychologyMedicineGender studiesPoison controlSociologySuicide preventionSocial psychologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To apply an intersectional lens to explore how the interconnected social identities of women across global settings impact access experiences for gender-based violence (GBV) supports. Design: A scoping review. Data sources: We systematically searched seven databases to identify studies published in English from the database inception to January 2023. Inclusion criteria: We included peer-reviewed studies with a primary objective of examining the access experiences of populations who self-identify as women (aged 15 years or older) who have experienced GBV, have intersecting identities (ie, racialisation, poverty, etc) that can further contribute to marginalisation and utilised or sought support services. Methods: Two reviewers independently completed title/abstract, full-text screening and data charting. Integrating intersectionality theory and the McIntyre access framework, we analysed support service access and utilisation across social identities, axes of marginalisation and geographic contexts. Results: 210 papers (195 distinct studies) met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (60%) were published since 2015 and used qualitative methods (63%). Findings reflected intersectional differences in women's experiences of accessing GBV services across contexts and lived experiences. Common findings indicate that seeking GBV support was motivated and enabled by informal supports and positive prior experiences in accessing services. However, findings highlight that structural and systemic constraints in existing support systems (in all study settings) impact access to necessary support services and their alignment with women's needs. Few studies examined health and non-health outcomes associated with unhindered access to care. Conclusions: Women's experiences with GBV support systems in different geopolitical contexts highlight barriers across axes of racialisation, poverty, multidimensional violence and other systemic factors, which are often eclipsed in generic one-size-fits-all models of support. This research can inform transformational policy development and tailored interventions to improve outcomes for all women who experience GBV and thus advance gender equality and equity goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Public HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207