The impact of parental intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) on young adult relationships: a UK general population cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is uncertainty about the extent to which parental intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) increases risk of IPVA in the next generation. We aimed to provide estimates for the relationship between IPVA among mothers, and IPVA in their children's own relationships as young adults. Methods: Using data from 3243 families from a UK birth cohort, we estimated risks of IPVA victimisation and perpetration among women and men aged 18-21 (a validated measure captured at age 21), according to mother's IPVA victimisation status by age 18 (overall and separately for physical and psychological subtypes; a non-validated measure: 2-13 questions asked at ages 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18). Findings: Unadjusted relative risks (RR) for associations between maternal IPVA victimisation and subtypes of young adult IPVA ranged 0.91 to 1.54. There was a positive association between maternal psychological IPVA and subsequent victimisation among their children as young adult women (RR 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 1.41), attenuating to the null after adjustment for prenatal maternal IPVA and socio-economic factors. The strongest adjusted association was between maternal physical IPVA and perpetration among men (RR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.00). Maternal physical IPVA accounted for 10% of perpetration cases among men (CI: 2% to 16%). Most of this 10% was represented by young adults from families who experienced both maternal IPVA victimisation and child maltreatment. Interpretation: Interventions supporting young boys exposed to maternal physical IPVA could reduce risks of them using violence or abuse in their relationships. Services supporting families experiencing IPVA should consider co-occurring wider family adversity, which carried higher risk for intergenerational continuity of IPVA. Funding: UK Medical Research Council (MR/S002634/1).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".