Intimate Partner Violence in a Patient Population with Orthopaedic Trauma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This prospective cohort study determined the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) across gender groups, investigated timing of disclosures during the standard-of-care follow-up period, and examined if there was an association between IPV and clinical outcomes. METHODS: This study included 314 patients ≥18 years of age presenting with orthopaedic injuries to the fracture clinics at 2 academic hospitals. Participants were asked about experiences with IPV, return to function, and overall health at each routine clinical follow-up. Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore associations between IPV status and return to work, leisure activities, home responsibilities, and overall functioning. RESULTS: Of the 528 patients approached, 314 provided consent and completed at least the initial visit. Of these, 184 (58.6%) self-identified as women, 126 (40.1%) identified as men, and 3 (1.0%) self-identified as non-binary. Forty-six percent of women reported lifetime experience of IPV, compared with 35% of men and 100% of gender-diverse participants. A smaller proportion of men who disclosed IPV did so at their first visit compared with women, especially with respect to sexual IPV: 6 men (50.0%) compared with 42 women (79.2%). During follow-up, 16 participants (6.7% of 238 who returned to the clinic at least once), including 8 men, 7 women, and 1 gender-diverse participant, disclosed experiencing IPV during their recovery period. Disclosing IPV at any visit was associated with a 45% lower likelihood of returning to a pre-injury level of function with respect to work (hazard ratio [HR], 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33 to 0.91]; p = 0.021) and a 36% lower likelihood of returning to a pre-injury overall level of functioning (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.90]; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Results showed an unacceptably high prevalence of IPV in all genders. Gender differences in timing of disclosure emphasize the need for tailored approaches in clinical settings and repeated opportunities for IPV disclosure. This study emphasizes the hidden nature of IPV among patients with orthopaedic trauma and its effects on their health and recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".