644 Burn Violence Against Women: The Tip of the Iceberg from a Country’s Nation-wide Burn Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Violence against women is pervasive. An estimated one in four women aged over 15 years old in this country have experienced physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner. Recent high-profile cases of homicidal burn violence perpetrated against women have shocked the nation. Since 2012, the Counting Dead Women project has tallied 30 women whose deaths involved fire-related violence. Currently however, there is a paucity of evidence about the frequency and burden of burn violence against women in this population. The aim of this study was to describe and compare the frequency, sociodemographic characteristics, injuries, and outcomes of women admitted to nation-wide burn centres with burns caused from suspected violence with women with unintentional burns. Methods Data were extracted from the country’s bi-national burn registry for women (≥ 18 years) admitted to nation-wide burn centres, between 2009 and 2022, with burns caused by suspected violence or unintentional burns. Statistical analyses were not performed due to substantial differences in comparator group sizes that would have greatly reduced the statistical power, reliability, and validity of results. Socio-demographic profiles, injury characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes were described and compared. Results Between 2009 and 2022, 157 women (2.5%) were admitted with burn injuries from suspected violence, and 6105 women (97.5%) were admitted with unintentional injuries. Women with burns from suspected violence were younger (median 36 vs 43 years) than women with unintentional burns, greater proportions sustained fire-related burns (38.1% vs 25.3%) with gasoline fuelling the flames (80.0% vs 38.0%), their injuries were more severe (median 2.0 vs 5.0 %TBSA), more likely to involve their head (42.3% vs 16.4%), and a greater proportion of them died (4.5% versus 1.5%). The perpetrators of burn violence were most often women’s current or ex-partners. Conclusions Our study contributes to an emerging and disturbing body of international literature demonstrating the confronting nature and consequences of burn violence perpetrated against women. Our findings are likely an underestimation of the true number of women with burns caused from violence admitted to burn centres, as women do not always disclose violence. Applicability of Research to Practice Whilst the wider problem of ending violence against women currently appears intractable, there is a valuable opportunity available now for burn centers to better protect women, by building capacity and skills within burn teams to be able to better identify women at risk and respond to women who disclose violence. Funding for the Study NIL
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".