MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416011893 · doi:10.1101/2025.11.06.25339672

Patterns of Long-term Ambulatory Care Utilization Following Exposure to Physical and Non-physical Intimate Partner Violence: A Cohort Study

2025· preprint· W4416011893 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabriel John Dusing, Chungah Kim, Beverley M. Essue, Molly Szczech, Patricia O’Campo, Nicholas Metheny

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmbulatory careAmbulatoryDomestic violenceIncidence (geometry)TriagePoison controlHealth careCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant determinant of women’s health that can shape care needs and care-seeking over time. Evidence on long-term patterns of ambulatory care use among survivors, however, remains limited. This study examines whether exposure to physical and non-physical IPV is associated with long-term ambulatory care utilization among women in Toronto, Canada. Data come from the 2009-2011 Neighbourhood Effects on Health and Well-being (NEHW) study linked to the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) through 2020. IPV exposure was categorized as none, non-physical IPV only, or both physical and non-physical IPV. Negative binomial regression models estimated incidence rates per 100,000 person-years, incorporating follow-up time as an offset and adjusting for sociodemographic and health characteristics. Among participants with at least one ambulatory care visit, we also examined urgency of presentation (Canadian Triage Acuity Scale [CTAS]) and mode of arrival. Women exposed to both physical and non-physical IPV had higher rates of ambulatory care use compared with women reporting no IPV or non-physical IPV alone. For non-urgent or less urgent presentations (CTAS 4-5), incidence rates were 47.94 (95%CI: 32.75-63.13) per 100,000 person-years among women exposed to both forms of IPV, compared with 23.59 (95%CI: 17.34-29.85) among women exposed to non-physical IPV alone and 29.79 (95%CI: 25.18-34.41) among women with no IPV exposure. Differences between the “Both” group and each comparison group were statistically significant (p=0.02 and p<0.01, respectively). For urgent, emergent, or resuscitation-level visits (CTAS 3-1), incidence rates were directionally higher among women exposed to both forms of IPV (128.98; 95%CI: 101.71-156.24) versus non-physical IPV alone (98.24; 95%CI: 82.70-115.17) and no IPV (99.96; 95%CI: 90.83-108.48), though these differences were not statistically significant. These findings indicate that IPV, particularly when involving physical violence, shapes long-term patterns of ambulatory care use. Differences reflect how survivors navigate healthcare systems structured by trauma, stigma, and access constraints, underscoring the need for trauma– and violence-informed care approaches.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.330 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicIntimate Partner and Family Violence→French-language works237,207→