Life events and emergency department visits in response to crisis in individuals with intellectual disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Stressful life events have been linked to psychopathology in the general population, but few studies have considered the relationship between life events and psychopathology for people with intellectual disabilities (ID), and the link between particular life events and hospital use. METHODS: Informants provided data on 746 adults with ID who had experienced at least one 'crisis'. Informants completed a checklist of recent life events from the Psychiatric Assessment for Adults with Developmental Disabilities Checklist (PAS ADD checklist) and also indicated whether the crisis resulted in a visit to the hospital emergency department. RESULTS: Individuals experiencing life events in the past year were more likely to visit the emergency department in response to crisis than those who did not experience any life events. Individuals experiencing a move of house or residence, serious problem with family, friend or caregiver, problems with police or other authority, unemployed for more than 1 month, recent trauma/abuse, or a drug or alcohol problem were more likely to visit the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Six specific life events were found to be associated with use of emergency departments in response to crisis. We suggest intervention efforts be targeted towards people who experience life events, particularly these events, as they may be a risk factor for hospital visits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".