Domains of Access for Interventions Addressing Intimate Partner Violence Among Latina Immigrants: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Latina immigrants in the United States face barriers to accessing information and support for intimate partner violence (IPV) due to language and cultural differences, a lack of legal awareness, social isolation, and financial issues. Despite numerous interventions, research lacks insight into how these programs address access barriers and target IPV-related risk and protective factors. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to (1) identify intervention studies conducted with Latina immigrants in reducing IPV outcomes (ie, sexual and physical violence and gender-based violence-related knowledge and attitudes), (2) evaluate the extent to which the implementation of these IPV interventions aligns with the access to care framework, and (3) establish whether the extent of IPV intervention alignment with the access to care framework has any significant impact on effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols) checklist. The research will proceed iteratively among authors. The team, including a librarian, developed a search strategy and searched 7 databases, namely, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PubMed, Scopus, Social Work Abstracts, GenderWatch, and Sociological Abstracts, from inception to June 9, 2025. Two reviewers independently conducted a double selection of titles, abstracts, and full texts. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Data extraction will be performed by 2 reviewers and validated by a senior researcher. We will develop an intervention characteristics form for data extraction and analyze the study quality using the modified Methodological Quality Rating Scale. To assess alignment with access implementation standards, we will operationalize the access to care framework by creating the Domains of IPV Service Access Rating Scale to evaluate how interventions address access barriers and determine whether addressing these barriers increases intervention effectiveness. RESULTS: The search strategy and literature review were finalized in June 2025. A total of 943 references were identified after duplicates were removed, of which 182 will be reviewed in full text. A follow up search will be performed prior to submission. The publication is anticipated for October 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This review will provide a comprehensive synthesis of strategies to address access barriers in IPV interventions for Latina immigrants, informing future practice and research to enhance equitable access to support and resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42024622171; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024622171. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/76996.
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 | 0.107 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.009 |
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".