MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4281992228 · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00151-1

Intimate partner violence, suicidality, and self-harm: a probability sample survey of the general population in England

2022· article· en· W4281992228 sur OpenAlexaff
Sally McManus, Sylvia Walby, Estela Capelas Barbosa, Louis Appleby, Traolach Brugha, Paul Bebbington, Elizabeth A. Cook, Duleeka Knipe

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Établissements canadiensInstitute of Population and Public Health
Organismes subventionnairesEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectoratePublic Health AgencyDepartment of Health and Social CareHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationScottish GovernmentElizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of BristolNatural Environment Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationHealth FoundationWellcome TrustDepartment for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland
Mots-clésHarmPopulationPoison controlSuicide preventionSample (material)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background: While intimate partner violence (IPV) is a recognised risk factor for psychiatric disorder, its links with self-harm and suicidality are not understood. Methods: Analysis of a 2014 probability sample survey of 7058 adults (16+) in the English general population. Multivariable logistic regression models quantified associations between IPV and past-year non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. Outcomes: A fifth (21·4%, n=1702) of adults reported lifetime experience of IPV. In 66·0% this included physical IPV, 66·4% emotional, 28·4% economic, and 9·5% sexual. Half (49·3%) experienced more than one type. Rates were higher in women, 35-54-year-olds, and those living in rented accommodation or deprived neighbourhoods. Among people who had attempted suicide in the past year half (49·7%) had experienced IPV, 23·1% experienced IPV in the past year (39·6% of women, 9·4% of men). After adjusting for potential confounders including adversities, the odds of past-year suicide attempt were 2·82 (95% CI:1·54-5·17) times higher in IPV victims than non-victims. Adjusted odds ratios for past-year self-harm (2·20, 1·37-3·53) and suicidal thoughts (1·85, 1·39-2·46) were also raised. Sexual IPV was ten times more common in women than men, and an IPV type associated with particularly high odds self-harm and suicidality. Interpretation: IPV is common in England (especially among women) and strongly associated with self-harm and suicidality (especially sexual IPV). People presenting to services after self-harm should be asked about IPV. Interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and duration of IPV may protect and improve the lives of people at risk of suicide and self-harm. Funding Information: NHS Digital commissioned APMS 2014 with funding from the Department of Health and Social Care in England (DHSC). This research was supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; MR-VO49879/1), which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, Economic and Social Research Council, Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (Welsh Government), Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, Natural Environment Research Council, Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland), The Health Foundation, and Wellcome. DK is funded by Wellcome Trust and the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute Bristol. Declaration of Interests: LA chairs England’s cross-government National Suicide Prevention Strategy Advisory Group. On behalf of all other authors, the corresponding author states that there are no other conflicts of interests. Ethics Approval Statement: The original survey was approved by the West London National Research Ethics Committee 14/LO/0411, RIT0985, 139324. The secondary analyses were approved by IMJEE Research Ethics Committee, City, University of London (ETH2122-0299). The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. Verbal informed consent was obtained.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,121
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,241

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,003
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0000,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,343
Écart entre enseignants0,296 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations116
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Psychiatry→Même sujetIntimate Partner and Family Violence→Travaux en français237 207→