Time Trends in Emergency Department Visits for Suicide-Related Behaviours by Girls and Boys in Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: In Canada, emergency departments (EDs) are a frontline setting for treating suicide-related behaviours (SRBs) among adolescents, yet description of national trends in ED SRB visits is lacking. We determined whether the SRB incidence rate and method patterns between 2002 and 2010 previously shown for Ontario adolescents were also experienced in Alberta. Method: A retrospective, population-based study of ED visits for SRBs (self-poisoning or self-injury, irrespective of suicidal intent) by 12- to 17-year-olds was conducted using administrative health care data from 104 EDs across Alberta, Canada. Incidence rates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and graphed. Rate ratios (RRs) comparing rates between time periods (2002-2005 and 2006-2010) and corresponding 95% CIs were estimated. Changes in SRB methods were also described. The time periods chosen were based on published Ontario trends. Results: Decreases in yearly incidence rates levelled off after 2005. Crude RRs indicated a rate decrease in 2006 to 2010 for boys (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65 to 0.90) and girls (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95). From 2002 to 2010, the proportion of SRB visits for self-poisoning decreased (girls, –13%; boys, –10%) while visits for self-cutting increased (girls, +13%; boys, +14%). Conclusions: Alberta trends were similar to those previously published for Ontario. Determining if the trends and observed changes are associated with mental health care access or availability and/or provincial suicide prevention strategies would contextualize these findings and could shape future prevention efforts. Lack of identification of suicidal intent and exclusion of fatal SRB are limitations of the current study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".