A framework to model global, regional, and national estimates of intimate partner violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Accurate and reliable estimates of violence against women form the backbone of global and regional monitoring efforts to eliminate this human right violation and public health problem. Estimating the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) is challenging due to variations in case definition and recall period, surveyed populations, partner definition, level of age disaggregation, and survey representativeness, among others. In this paper, we aim to develop a sound and flexible statistical modeling framework for global, regional, and national IPV statistics. Methods We modeled IPV within a Bayesian multilevel modeling framework, accounting for heterogeneity of age groups using age-standardization, and age patterns and time trends using splines functions. Survey comparability is achieved using adjustment factors which are estimated using exact matching and their uncertainty accounted for. Both in-sample and out-of-sample comparisons are used for model validation, including posterior predictive checks. Post-processing of models’ outputs is performed to aggregate estimates at different geographic levels and age groups. Results A total of 307 unique studies conducted between 2000–2018, from 154 countries/areas, and totaling nearly 1.8 million unique women responses informed lifetime IPV. Past year IPV had a similar number of studies (n = 332), countries/areas represented (n = 159), and individual responses (n = 1.8 million). Roughly half of IPV observations required some adjustments. Posterior predictive checks suggest good model fit to data and out-of-sample comparisons provided reassuring results with small median prediction errors and appropriate coverage of predictions’ intervals. Conclusions The proposed modeling framework can pool both national and sub-national surveys, account for heterogeneous age groups and age trends, accommodate different surveyed populations, adjust for differences in survey instruments, and efficiently propagate uncertainty to model outputs. Describing this model to reproducible levels of detail enables the accurate interpretation and responsible use of estimates to inform effective violence against women prevention policy and programs, and global monitoring of elimination efforts as part of the Sustainable Development Goals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 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".