Adolescent Dating Violence Prevention in Healthcare Settings: Systematic Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescent dating violence (ADV) is associated with short- and long-term physical and psychological adverse health outcomes. Therefore, it is crucial to implement prevention strategies to address ADV in settings that serve adolescents. One natural point of contact is healthcare settings, as adolescents may present to these settings due to general health concerns and concerns related to ADV exposure. However, little is known about the state of the science for how adolescent healthcare providers can participate in ADV prevention and work, as well as the potential barriers healthcare providers may face when incorporating ADV prevention strategies into their practice. To advance understanding, a systematic scoping review was conducted to summarize current evidence on (a) ADV prevention strategies in healthcare settings, and (b) healthcare provider perspectives on implementing ADV prevention strategies. The search was conducted in five relevant databases in September 2023. Peer-reviewed articles published in English before September 2023 were included if they addressed at least one study aim. After screening 5786 articles, 11 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Overall, there were only a few studies on ADV prevention strategies designed for implementation in healthcare settings. Common barriers identified to implementing ADV prevention strategies included limited time, training, and resources. Facilitators of implementation included ADV response protocols/guidelines and working in collaborative teams. This systematic scoping review demonstrates that further research is needed to develop and evaluate ADV prevention strategies for different healthcare settings, and to understand effective ways to address barriers to implementing these strategies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".