{"@type": "dcat:Dataset", "accessLevel": "restricted public", "bureauCode": ["011:21"], "contactPoint": {"@type": "vcard:Contact", "fn": "Open Data Office of Justice Programs (USDOJ)", "hasEmail": "mailto:opendata@usdoj.gov"}, "dataQuality": false, "description": "Introduction and Background. Minorities are less likely to report\r\nrapes. The Post Coital DNA Recovery (PCDR) study (2009-14) subjects were white\r\n(93%) where expanded collection times were not generalizable to minority\r\npopulations. Evidence reports health and medical differences between races\r\nnecessitating duplication of previous research in minority populations.\r\nAims.\r\n(1) What is the time period in which it is\r\npossible to collect post-coital DNA in minority women using Y-STR laboratory\r\nmethods? and (2) when compared to the former study sample of minority and\r\nnon-minority, what are the physiological conditions, factors, or activities in\r\nminority couples that influence post-coital DNA recovery?\r\nDesign. The design includes mixed methods duplication\r\nperfected in the first study, embracing descriptive and inferential techniques.\r\nQualitative research used semi-structured interviews. Aim 1 analysis used PCDR-M\r\ndata only. Aim 2 combined data from both PCDR and PCDR-M studies. Combined, DNA\r\nrecovery, a binary outcome accounting for repeated methods in population\r\nregression analysis, used Generalized Estimating Equation (GEE) methods.\r\nFidelity.\r\nThe strict criteria for adherence included considerable outreach and\r\nsupport of study personnel. PCDR and PCDR-M data combined and compared the two\r\nsamples, which had specific homogeneity, including same inclusion and\r\nelimination criteria in both studies; fidelity to the validated protocol;\r\nlaboratory method and interpretation for inclusion; duplicate statistical\r\nanalysis; and interpretation of data. Any variation in key variables met\r\nelimination criteria.\r\nAssumptions and Limitations. Assumptions included (1) motivation is altruistic; (2)\r\nmotivation is incentives and coercion for some; (3) negotiating coitus is\r\ndifficult and stressful; and (4) similar fidelity and dropout rates. The\r\nlimitations included (1) a lack of representation for the diverse experiences\r\nof rape victims; (2) sample size; (3) self-selection bias; (4) protocol adherence;\r\nand (4) advances in laboratory science and DNA kits.\r\nDemographics. Demographic variables included gender, race, and age. Major categories in the dataset included participants' reproductive history, data on female participants' reproductive organs, and childhood abuse.", "distribution": [{"@type": "dcat:Distribution", "accessURL": "https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR37250.v1", "title": "Post Coital DNA Recovery in Minority Proxy Couples, United States, 2014-2018"}], "identifier": "2962", "issued": "2019-12-17T10:11:32", "keyword": ["genetics data", "reproductive history", "sexually transmitted disease"], "language": ["eng"], "license": "http://www.usa.gov/publicdomain/label/1.0/", "modified": "2019-12-17T10:18:26", "programCode": ["011:060"], "publisher": {"@type": "org:Organization", "name": "National Institute of Justice", "subOrganizationOf": {"acronym": "OJP", "id": 22, "name": "Office of Justice Programs", "parentOrganization": {"acronym": "DOJ", "id": 10, "name": "Department of Justice"}, "parentOrganizationID": 10}}, "rights": "These data are restricted due to the increased risk of violation of confidentiality of respondent and subject data.", "title": "Post Coital DNA Recovery in Minority Proxy Couples, United States, 2014-2018"}