Global Prevalence and Mental Health Outcomes of Intimate Partner Violence Among Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The aim of this systematic review was to assess the magnitude of the association between types of intimate partner violence (IPV) and mental health outcomes and shed light on the large variation in IPV prevalence rates between low- to middle-income countries and high-income countries. The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. The following databases were searched for this study: Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts. The inclusion criteria for this study are as follows: quantitative studies published from 2012 to 2020 on IPV exposure in women aged 16+, using validated measures. Random effects meta-analyses and subgroup analysis exploring heterogeneity across population groups in different economic contexts are used in this study. In all, 201 studies were included with 250,599 women, primarily from high-income countries. Higher prevalence rates were reported for women's lifetime IPV than past year IPV. Lifetime psychological violence was the most prevalent form of IPV. Women in the community reported the highest prevalence for physical, psychological, and sexual violence in the past year compared to clinical groups. Perinatal women were most likely to have experienced lifetime physical IPV. Prevalence rates differed significantly (p = .037 to <.001) for "any IPV" and all subtypes by income country level. Meta-analysis suggested increased odds for all mental health outcomes associated with IPV including depression (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04-3.14), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (OR = 2.15-2.66), and suicidality (OR = 2.17-5.52). Clinical and community populations were exposed to high prevalence of IPV and increased likelihood of depression, PTSD, and suicidality. Future research should seek to understand women's perspectives on service/support responses to IPV to address their mental health needs. Work with IPV survivors should be carried out to develop bespoke services to reduce IPV in groups most at risk such as pregnant and/or help-seeking women.

New Indicator of Children's Excessive Electronic Screen Use and Factors in Meibomian Gland Atrophy.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the association of children's daily electronic screen use with severe meibomian gland atrophy (MGA). DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. METHODS: Children (aged 6-17years) presenting at clinical practice December 2016 - October 2017 were evaluated for ≥grade 2 MGA vs age-matched controls with insignificant atrophy (

Sex Disparities in Productivity among Oculoplastic Surgeons.

Purpose The aim of the study is to investigate sex differences in academic rank, publication productivity, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding among oculoplastic surgeons and whether there is an association between American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS) membership and scholarly output. Methods Sex, residency graduation year, and academic rank were obtained from institutional websites of 113 U.S. ophthalmology programs. H-indices and m-quotients were obtained from the Scopus database. NIH funding information was obtained from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool. Results Of the 272 surgeons, 74 (30.2%) were females. When adjusted for career duration, differences in female to male proportions were only significant at the rank of assistant professor (assistant: 74.3 vs. 48.5%, p = 0.047; associate: 18.9 vs. 24.6%, p = 0.243; full professor: 13.0 vs. 37.2%, p = 0.114). Women had a shorter career duration than men [10.0 (interquartile range or IQR 12.0) vs. 21.0 (IQR 20.0) years; p < 0.001] and a lower h-index [4.0 (IQR 5.0) vs. 7.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001], but similar m-quotients [0.4 (IQR 0.4) vs. 0.4 (IQR 0.4); p = 0.9890]. Among ASOPRS members, females had a lower h-index than males [5.0 (IQR 6.0) vs. 9.0 (IQR 10.0); p < 0.001] due to career length differences. No difference in productivity between sexes was found among non-ASOPRS members. ASOPRS members from both sexes had higher scholarly output than their non-ASOPRS counterparts. Just 2.7% (2/74) of females compared with 5.3% (9/171) of males received NIH funding ( p = 0.681). Conclusion Sex differences in academic ranks and h-indices are likely due to the smaller proportion of females with long career durations. ASOPRS membership may confer opportunities for increased scholarly output.