Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13541
Record ID: 6cac6993-256a-4595-b3d1-c4723a216c85
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSchofield, Peter Wen
dc.contributor.authorJorm, Louisaen
dc.contributor.authorKarystianis, Georgeen
dc.contributor.authorAdily, Armitaen
dc.contributor.authorGreenberg, Daviden
dc.contributor.authorButler, Tonyen
dc.contributor.authorNenadic, Goranen
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:07:11Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:07:11Z-
dc.date.issued2019en
dc.identifier.citationVolume 21, Number 3en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13541-
dc.description.abstractBackground: The police attend numerous domestic violence events each year, recording details of these events as both structured (coded) data and unstructured free-text narratives. Abuse types (including physical, psychological, emotional, and financial) conducted by persons of interest (POIs) along with any injuries sustained by victims are typically recorded in long descriptive narratives.<br/ ><br/ >Objective: We aimed to determine if an automated text mining method could identify abuse types and any injuries sustained by domestic violence victims in narratives contained in a large police dataset from the New South Wales Police Force.<br/ ><br/ >Methods: We used a training set of 200 recorded domestic violence events to design a knowledge-driven approach based on syntactical patterns in the text and then applied this approach to a large set of police reports.<br/ ><br/ >Results: Testing our approach on an evaluation set of 100 domestic violence events provided precision values of 90.2% and 85.0% for abuse type and victim injuries, respectively. In a set of 492,393 domestic violence reports, we found 71.32% (351,178) of events with mentions of the abuse type(s) and more than one-third (177,117 events; 35.97%) contained victim injuries. “Emotional/verbal abuse” (33.46%; 117,488) was the most common abuse type, followed by “punching” (86,322 events; 24.58%) and “property damage” (22.27%; 78,203 events). “Bruising” was the most common form of injury sustained (51,455 events; 29.03%), with “cut/abrasion” (28.93%; 51,284 events) and “red marks/signs” (23.71%; 42,038 events) ranking second and third, respectively.<br/ ><br/ >Conclusions: The results suggest that text mining can automatically extract information from police-recorded domestic violence events that can support further public health research into domestic violence, such as examining the relationship of abuse types with victim injuries and of gender and abuse types with risk escalation for victims of domestic violence. Potential also exists for this extracted information to be linked to information on the mental health status.en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherJMIR Publicationsen
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Medical Internet Researchen
dc.titleAutomated Analysis of Domestic Violence Police Reports to Explore Abuse Types and Victim Injuries: Text Mining Studyen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.2196/13067en
dc.identifier.catalogid15625en
dc.subject.keywordInvalid URLen
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.description.notes<p>&copy;George Karystianis, Armita Adily, Peter W Schofield, David Greenberg, Louisa Jorm, Goran Nenadic, Tony Butler. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 12.03.2019.</p><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is properly cited.</p>en
dc.date.entered2019-10-08en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing