Child maltreatment and repeat presentations to the emergency department for suicide-related behaviors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with repeat emergency department (ED) presentations for suicide-related behaviors (SRB) - hereafter referred to as repetition - among children/youth to aid secondary prevention initiatives. To compare rates of repetition in children/youth with substantiated maltreatment requiring removal from their parental home with their peers in the general population. METHODS: A population-based (retrospective) cohort study was established for children/youth with a first ED SRB presentation at risk for repetition in the Province of Ontario, Canada between 1 January 2004 and 31 December 2008. Children/youth legally removed from their parental home because of substantiated maltreatment (n=179) and their population-based peers (n=6,305) were individually linked to administrative health care records over time to ascertain social, demographic, and clinical information and subsequent ED presentations for SRB during follow-up. These children/youth were described and their repetition-free probabilities over time compared. To identify factors associated with repetition we fit multivariable, recurrent event survival analysis models stratified by repetition and present unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Children/youth with substantiated maltreatment (as noted) were two times more likely to have repetition than their peers after adjustments for social, demographic, and clinical factors (conditional on prior ED SRB presentations). A number of these factors were independently associated with repetition. No one factor distinguished between having a first and second repetition nor was more strongly associated with repetition than another. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of repetition is higher in children with substantiated maltreatment (as noted) than their peers. No one factor stood out as predictive of repetition. Implications for secondary prevention initiatives include a non-selective approach, sensitive to family difficulties and the need to better contextualize repetition and harness data linkages.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".