Understanding Australian Massage Therapist’s Awareness of and Knowledge to Recognize Domestic and Family Violence: Findings from a Community Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate massage therapists' knowledge, confidence, and awareness of domestic and family violence (DFV) in clinical practice. An online questionnaire methodology was used to collect data from Australian massage therapists who were 18 years or over. The study was open for participation for 6 months. The authors developed the questionnaire based on a previous massage therapy profession questionnaire; it included 64 questions in three sections. Two hundred and seventeen respondents formed the dataset. This study found respondents with prior experience of DFV were significantly more likely to have undertaken DFV training than respondents with no prior experience of DFV (p = 0.004). Almost two-thirds of respondents either strongly agreed or agreed that they would like some training to better understand DFV (n = 142, 65.4%) and to better understand their responsibilities around DFV (n = 149, 68.7%). Over half of the respondents were somewhat or very confident they would recognize the signs and symptoms of DFV (n = 126, 58.3%). Over half of respondents (n = 119, 54.8%) felt somewhat knowledgeable about DFV. The main theme from the qualitative analysis was absent resources. The subthemes were (i) without training I cannot help, (ii) prepare me, train me early, and (iii) support me with resources. This study concluded that there is a lack of resources and a deficiency in skills and knowledge among massage therapists to recognize and respond appropriately to domestic violence in clinic. Respondents indicated a desire to learn more about DFV in their practices as they deemed that without training, education, and resources they cannot provide the best of care for their clients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".