MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409700374 · doi:10.1097/qad.0000000000004221

The health impact of spiritual intimate partner abuse among women living with HIV in Ghana

2025· article· en· W4409700374 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Y. Tenkorang

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomestic violencePsychosocialSexual coercionPsychiatryCoercion (linguistics)MedicineSubstance abuseSexual abusePsychologyPoison controlSuicide preventionEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although understudied, anecdotal evidence suggests spiritual/religious intimate partner abuse may be prevalent among women living with HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa and Ghana. This article examines the prevalence and effects of spiritual/religious intimate partner abuse - spiritual coercion and spiritual control - on the psychosocial (depression) and sexual health (unwanted pregnancies) outcomes of women living with HIV/AIDS in Ghana. METHODS: Data were collected from 1007 women living with HIV who attended Voluntary Counseling and Testing services at two district hospitals in the Lower Manya Krobo Municipality in the Eastern region of Ghana. Descriptive and multivariate logit models were used to examine the prevalence and impact of spiritual intimate partner abuse, measured as coercion and control on depression and unwanted pregnancies. RESULTS: Results showed that about 36% of the participants reported spiritual coercion, and 27% experienced spiritual control. Those who experienced spiritual coercion were significantly more likely to report unwanted pregnancies than those who did not. Women who experienced spiritual control were more likely to report depression than those who did not. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest the need to educate Ghanaian women living with HIV about spiritual/religious intimate partner abuse and to screen this type of violence as part of HIV care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.873

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDSSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207