Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25540251›Full record

ArticleViolence against women2015

Does neighborhood environment differentiate intimate partner femicides from other femicides?

Kirsten M M Beyer, Peter M Layde, L Kevin Hamberger, Purushottam W Laud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Violence against women, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kirsten M M BeyerMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA kbeyer@mcw.edu.
Peter M LaydeMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
L Kevin HambergerMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.
Purushottam W LaudMedical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.

Funding

Clincal and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000055 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI SHAKER, REZA NONE · 2012 to 2015
$11.3M
CTSA INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PEDIATRIC RESEARCHUL1RR031973 · NCRR · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI SHAKER, REZA NONE · 2010 to 2011
$7.9M
Injury Research Center at the Medical College of WisconsinR49CE001175 · CE · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI HARGARTEN, STEPHEN WILLIAM · 2007 to 2011
$4.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000055NCIPC CDC HHS R49 CE001175NCIPC CDC HHS R49/CE001175NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR031973NCRR NIH HHS UL1RR031973PHS HHS T32-HP10030PHS HHS U17/CCU523099
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We examined the association between neighborhood-level factors and intimate partner femicide (IPF) using Wisconsin Violent Death Reporting System (WVDRS) data and Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence (WCADV) reports, in concert with neighborhood-level information. After controlling for individual characteristics, neighborhood-level disadvantage was associated with a decreased likelihood of IPF status, as compared with other femicides, whereas neighborhood-level residential instability was associated with an increased likelihood of IPF status. Neighborhood plays a role in differentiating IPFs from other femicides in our study area. Our findings demonstrate the importance of multilevel strategies for understanding and reducing the burden of intimate partner violence.

Indexed as

Interpersonal RelationsAdolescentAdultFemaleGeographic MappingHomicideHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceMiddle AgedResidence CharacteristicsSocioeconomic FactorsWisconsinintimate partner femicideneighborhoodsresidence characteristics

Identifiers

PMID25540251
PMCPMC4500151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.