MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408827178 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093988

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence against women with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol

2025· review· en· W4408827178 on OpenAlexaff
Shaffa Hameed, Babalwa Tyabashe-Phume, Eunice Tunggal, Xanthe Hunt, Lieketseng Ned, Karen Soldatić

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisability Rights and Representation
Canadian institutionsCentre for Disability Prevention and Rehabilitation
FundersUniversiteit StellenboschSexual Violence Research Initiative
KeywordsGrey literatureCINAHLMedicinePsycINFOScopusSystematic reviewInclusion (mineral)Poison controlMEDLINEPsychological interventionNursingPsychologyEnvironmental healthSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Women with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face heightened risks of experiencing gender-based violence (GBV). The rapid growth of digital technologies has introduced new forms of violence, such as technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), which disproportionately affects marginalised groups. Despite growing awareness, the intersection of disability, gender and TFGBV is under-researched. This scoping review aims to map and synthesise the evidence on TFGBV against women with disabilities in LMICs, exploring the manifestations of violence, its key vulnerabilities and protective factors within these settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A systematic search of peer-reviewed and grey literature will be performed in six databases, including CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, PubMed and PsycINFO. Studies published from 2010 onwards, focusing on women with disabilities in LMICs and involving any form of TFGBV, will be included. The search strategy includes broad query terms to capture diverse experiences of TFGBV. The identified literature will be screened and double-checked for relevance by independent reviewers. Data extraction will focus on key themes such as study design, forms of TFGBV and the risks and protective factors reported. We will conduct basic content analysis, and results will be presented in tables and narratives, providing a descriptive map of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will synthesise previously published studies and publicly available grey literature; therefore, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentations at relevant conferences and knowledge-sharing sessions with stakeholders working in the field of disability and GBV prevention. The review will inform future research and interventions aimed at addressing TFGBV in LMICs. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GZ2UR).

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)0.003
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.356 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicDisability Rights and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207