Suicide Attempts and Completions among Mothers Whose Children Were Taken into Care by Child Protection Services: A Cohort Study Using Linkable Administrative Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine suicide attempts and completions among mothers who had a child taken into care by child protection services (CPS). These mothers were compared with their biological sisters who did not have a child taken into care and with mothers who received services from CPS but did not have a child taken into care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of mothers whose first child was born in Manitoba, Canada, between April 1, 1992, and March 31, 2015, is used. Rates among discordant biological sisters (1872 families) were compared using fixed-effects Poisson regression models, and mothers involved with CPS (children in care [ n = 1872] and received services [ n = 9590]) were compared using a Poisson regression model. RESULTS: Compared with their biological sisters and mothers who received services, the adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) of death by suicide was greater among mothers whose child was taken into care by CPS (aIRR = 4.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39-14.33] and ARR = 3.45 [95% CI, 1.61-7.40], respectively). Incidence rates of suicide attempts were higher among mothers with a child taken into care compared with their sisters (aIRR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.40-3.30) and mothers receiving services (aIRR = 2.82; 95% CI, 2.03-3.92). CONCLUSIONS: Mothers who had a child taken into care had significantly higher rates of suicide attempts and completions. When children are taken into care, physician and social workers should inquire about maternal suicidal behaviour and provide appropriate mental health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".