MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410133941 · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-22637-z

Compliance with mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence among professionals in Norway

2025· article· en· W4410133941 on OpenAlexaff
Christine Nordby, Kevin S. Douglas, Astrid Gravdal Vølstad, Thea Beate Brevik, Stål Bjørkly, Solveig Karin Bø Vatnar

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsDomestic violenceMedicineCompliance (psychology)Context (archaeology)Occupational safety and healthPoison controlLogistic regressionInjury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsSuicide preventionFamily medicineNursingSocial psychologyPsychologyMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mandatory reporting is a common legislative preventative measure for several types of crimes, among them family violence and specifically intimate partner violence (IPV). Among the individuals who are mandated to report under the law are professionals working with IPV victims and perpetrators in their practice. However, little is known about which characteristics are associated with compliance with the mandatory reporting of IPV (MR-IPV) law, on the one hand, and choosing not to report IPV, on the other. METHODS: The current study sampled 357 professionals from 6 different agencies working with IPV victims and/or perpetrators. Six dichotomous outcome variables of compliance with MR-IPV and choosing not to report were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. The independent variables were professionals' perceptions and knowledge of MR-IPV, context and workplace conditions, and experience with IPV cases and risk assessment. RESULTS: Findings showed that risk of compliance with MR-IPV varied between complying with and without consent. Perceived applicability of MR-IPV for an IPV victim was the only variable that had significantly positively odds ratio for both compliance with and without consent. For choosing not to report, significant variables varied between whether the incident had taken place sometime throughout participants' careers or during the last year, and whether it concerned a victim or a perpetrator. However, knowledge of MR-IPV, experience with IPV cases, expectations of MR-IPV, perceived workplace time management, and perception of compliance were significant for choosing not to report. CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the characteristics that are associated with professionals' compliance with MR-IPV is essential to better understand the application of MR-IPV, to implement practice that is consistent with law, and ultimately to prevent IPV. Further research is needed to explore the context of compliance with MR-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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.331 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public Health→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→