ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Clinical and public health implications of Supreme Court jurisprudence on gender-based violence: a qualitative analysis of Spanish rulings following organic law 10/2022.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gender-based violence (GBV) represents a major public health and legal challenge, requiring coordinated responses between healthcare and judicial systems. The implementation of Organic Law 10/2022 has introduced significant changes in the legal framework, influencing both judicial interpretation and clinical practice. Objective: To analyze interpretive patterns, evidentiary criteria, and jurisprudential trends in Spanish Supreme Court rulings on gender-based violence and habitual abuse, with particular attention to the role of healthcare professionals. Methods: A qualitative document analysis was conducted on Supreme Court rulings issued between 2023 and 2025. A total of 195 anonymized judgments were selected from the Aranzadi database. Data were analyzed using thematic coding, inductive categorization, and interpretative triangulation. Results: The victim's testimony has been consolidated as the principal form of evidence, provided it meets criteria of persistence, coherence, and credibility. The gender-based aggravating circumstance is applied within a contextual framework of domination. Sentence review under Organic Law 10/2022 follows the principle of favorable retroactivity, although interpretative inconsistencies persist. Habitual abuse is recognized as an autonomous offense requiring continuity, although its delimitation remains variable. Healthcare professionals play a key role in detection, documentation, and medico-legal support, contributing to evidentiary robustness. Conclusions: The findings highlight a progressive alignment between legal doctrine and healthcare practice. Strengthening clinical documentation, interdisciplinary coordination, and professional training is essential to improve both judicial outcomes and victim protection. This study underscores the critical role of healthcare professionals as evidentiary and preventive agents in gender-based violence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.