Intentional injury and violence in Cape Town, South Africa: an epidemiological analysis of trauma admissions data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Injury is a truly global health issue that has enormous societal and economic consequences in all countries. Interpersonal violence is now widely recognized as important global public health issues that can be addressed through evidence-based interventions. In South Africa, as in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), a lack of ongoing, systematic injury surveillance has limited the ability to characterize the burden of violence-related injury and to develop prevention programmes. OBJECTIVE: To describe the profile of trauma presenting to the trauma centre of Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa - relating to interpersonal violence, using data collected from a newly implemented surveillance system. Particular emphasis was placed on temporal aspects of injury epidemiology, as well as age and sex differentiation. DESIGN: Data were collected prospectively using a standardized trauma admissions form for all patients presenting to the trauma centre. An epidemiological analysis was conducted on 16 months of data collected from June 2010 to October 2011. RESULTS: A total of 8445 patients were included in the analysis, in which the majority were violence-related. Specifically, 35% of records included violent trauma and, of those, 75% of victims were male. There was a clear temporal pattern: a greater proportion of intentional injuries occur during the night, while unintentional injury peaks late in the afternoon. In total, two-third of all intentional trauma is inflicted on the weekends, as is 60% of unintentional trauma. Where alcohol was recorded in the record, 72% of cases involved intentional injury. Sex was again a key factor as over 80% of all records involving alcohol or substance abuse were associated with males. The findings highlighted the association between violence, young males, substance use, and weekends. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides the basis for evidence-based interventions to reduce the burden of intentional injury. Furthermore, it demonstrates the value of locally appropriate, ongoing, systematic public health surveillance in LMIC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".