Exposure to intimate partner violence and subsequent substance use among a nationwide sample of LGBTQIA+ people: results of The PRIDE Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, intersex, aromantic, asexual, or another sexual or gender minority (LGBTQIA+) are at greater risk of both intimate partner violence (IPV) and substance use compared to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts. However, knowledge regarding the complex relationship between IPV and substance use in LGBTQIA+ communities is limited. METHODS: This study used data from 2 years of The PRIDE (Population Research in Identity and Disparities for Equality) Study, a nationwide, community-based sample of LGBTQIA+ adults in the United States. Past-year IPV in 2021 was measured using the Extended-Hurt, Insulted, Threaten, Scream scale. Substances used in 2022 were measured via the NIDA-Modified Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (NM ASSIST). Linear and modified Poisson regression models explored temporal relationships between past-year IPV and prospective substance use. RESULTS: Participants (n = 3745) were relatively young (median= 34 years, interquartile range: 27.6-48.5) and represented diverse LGBTQIA+ subcommunities. Approximately one-quarter (23.7%) were cisgender women and 17% were cisgender men. Half (49.2%) were gender minority people. Overall, one-quarter (24.6%) reported exposure to IPV in 2021. In adjusted models, past-year IPV was associated with prospective substance use (risk ratio [RR]: 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.19). Additionally, more frequent IPV was associated with a higher prospective NM ASSIST score for cannabis (B: 0.22; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36), stimulants (B: 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.35), hallucinogens (B: 0.07; 95% CI, 0.02-0.12), and narcotics (B: 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to IPV in 2021 was linked to greater substance use in 2022. Findings underscore the role of IPV in substance use among LGBTQIA+ people. Furthermore, they point to the need for increased IPV screening and referral among LGBTQIA+ people, as well as the potential efficacy of trauma-informed substance use interventions that address 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".