Trends in suicidal behaviour and use of mental health services in Canadian military and civilian populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In the context of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, substantial media attention has been placed on mental health and lack of access to treatment among Canadian Forces personnel. We compared trends in the prevalence of suicidal behaviour and the use of mental health services between Canadian military personnel and the general population from 2002 to 2012/13. METHODS: We obtained data for respondents aged 18-60 years who participated in 4 nationally representative surveys by Statistics Canada designed to permit comparisons between populations and trends over time. Surveys of the general population were conducted in 2002 (n = 25 643) and 2012 (n = 15 981); those of military personnel were conducted in 2002 (n = 5153) and 2013 (n = 6700). We assessed the lifetime and past-year prevalence of suicidal ideation, plans and attempts, as well as use of mental health services. RESULTS: In 2012/13, but not in 2002, military personnel had significantly higher odds of both lifetime and past-year suicidal ideation than the civilian population (lifetime: adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.17-1.50; past year: adjusted OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.09-1.66). The same was true for suicidal plans (lifetime: adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.35-1.99; past year: adjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.18-2.33). Among respondents who reported past-year suicidal ideation, those in the military had a significantly higher past-year utilization rate of mental health services than those in the civilian population in both 2002 (adjusted OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.31-3.13) and 2012/13 (adjusted OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.86-5.28). INTERPRETATION: Canadian Forces personnel had a higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and plans in 2012/13 and a higher use of mental health services in 2002 and 2012/13 than the civilian population.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".