MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408831614 · doi:10.1177/17455057251323091

Barriers in accessing intimate partner violence services: Intersecting views of immigrant and minority ethnic survivors and community organization workers

2025· article· en· W4408831614 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tatiana Sanhueza, Sonia Michaelsen, Nassera Touati, Lourdes Rodríguez del Barrio

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupSocial supportParticipatory action researchDomestic violenceMedicinePoison controlSociologySuicide preventionPsychologySocial psychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) can have serious physical and mental health consequences for women. Women from immigrant and/or ethnic minority backgrounds may face additional barriers in accessing support. This research was based in a multicultural and marginalized neighborhood in Montreal (Canada) with a high incidence of IPV. OBJECTIVES: (1) To better understand the needs and challenges of women survivors of IPV who come from immigrant and/or ethnic minority backgrounds, and the barriers they face in seeking help; (2) to understand the perspectives of community organization workers on immigrant and ethnic minority survivors' needs and barriers in accessing services, as well as their knowledge about how to best support survivors. DESIGN: We employed a mixed-methods design using a community-based participatory approach. Bronfenbrenner's socioecological model was used as a theoretical framework to analyze the findings. METHODS: We conducted in-depth individual interviews with 7 female survivors of IPV from immigrant and/or ethnic minority backgrounds and conducted surveys with 23 community organization workers. RESULTS: The study shows a dissonance in views between survivors and workers. The survivors identified barriers to accessing support at each level of Bronfenbrenner's ecosystem, reflecting the complexity of their situations. For example, (1) macro-system: inadequacy of the legal system, racism; (2) exo-system: accessibility of services, poor quality of services, distrust of institutions; (3) micro-system: social and family pressure, poor social integration; (4) onto-system: language barriers, lack of knowledge of resources, feelings of fear and shame. The workers mainly noted barriers at the onto-level, which was primarily linked to gender and immigration status. Only 52% had ever attended a training on IPV. Most of their organizations had no referral protocol nor educational material about services for IPV for clients. CONCLUSION: Community-based organizations that do not specialize in IPV often work with survivors and are therefore an important resource in IPV prevention and survivor care. Training them on IPV, sensitizing them to understand the systemic barriers the survivors experience, and equipping their organizations are key strategies for developing a coordinated, community-based response to IPV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen s HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207