Experiences of identification and initial responses to children exposed to domestic violence: qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: to inform development of Canadian guidelines for health and social care professionals on children’s exposure to domestic violence and abuse (CE-DVA). Objectives: to synthesise qualitative evidence on child, parent and professional views on the acceptability of identifying and responding to CE-DVA. Methods: We re-screened papers identified in the previous review on CE-DVA (Howarth et al, 2017) and re-ran searches for new studies. Inclusion criteria: qualitative studies with children, non-abusing parents and health/ social care professionals which described their experiences of identification and initial response to CE-DVA. Findings from the studies were analysed using thematic synthesis. Results: Searches identified 2,038 papers, 15 of which met inclusion criteria. The papers reported on 11 studies which involved 42 children, 220 mothers and 251 health and social care professionals. Children and mothers perceived health professionals as dealing with physical health and shared fears of stigma and negative consequences preventing them from disclosing DVA and engaging with services. However, they considered it acceptable if health professionals ask about safety at home when exploring causes of their symptoms. Children and mothers considered such questions to be acceptable if there was a good relationship with the professional. Children thought that adolescence is an acceptable age to see a doctor alone. Mothers considered it to be acceptable to ask children about DVA from the age of five. Professionals’ awareness of the impact of DVA on children, communication skills and the nature of the relationship with the mother influenced their acceptability of identification of CE-DVA. Major barriers for health professionals were: lack of time, competing priorities, uncertainty in cases of less severe DVA and emotional DVA, and poor interagency work. Social workers were perceived as threatening and punitive. Mothers and social workers had different understandings of risk assessment and safety planning. Practitioners wanted more training, brief and up-to-date resources with referral pathways, and better interagency collaboration.
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 | 0.087 | 0.148 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".