MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789320453 · doi:10.1192/bjo.2017.4

Prevalence and predictors of involuntary psychiatric hospital admissions in Ontario, Canada: a population-based linked administrative database study

2018· article· en· W2789320453 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michael Lebenbaum, Maria Chiu, Simone N. Vigod, Paul Kurdyak

Bibliographic record

VenueBJPsych Open · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePoisson regressionDeclarationMental healthChristian ministryPublic healthPsychiatryPopulationFamily medicineEnvironmental healthNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Involuntary admissions to psychiatric hospitals are common; however, research examining the trends in prevalence over time and predictors is limited. Aims To examine trends in prevalence and risk factors for involuntary admissions in Ontario, Canada. METHOD: We conducted an analysis of all mental health bed admissions from 2009 to 2013 and assessed the association between patient sociodemographics, service utilisation, pathway to care and severity characteristics for involuntary admissions using a modified Poisson regression. RESULTS: We found a high and increasing prevalence of involuntary admissions (70.7% in 2009, 77.1% in 2013, 74.1% overall). Individuals with police contact in the prior week (risk ratio (RR) = 1.20) and immigrants both experienced greater likelihood of being involuntarily admitted, regardless of control for other characteristics (RR = 1.07) (both P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified numerous modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors for involuntary admissions. The prevalence of involuntary admissions was high, linearly increasing over time. Declaration of interest The authors have completed the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest and none were reported. This study was conducted using funding entirely from public sources. P.K. has received operational support via an Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC) Health Services Research Fund Capacity Award to support this project. The Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) is funded by the Ontario MOHLTC. The study results and conclusions are those of the authors, and should not be attributed to any of the funding agencies or sponsoring agencies. No endorsement by ICES or the Ontario MOHLTC is intended or should be inferred. All decisions regarding study design, publication, and data analysis were made independent of the funding agencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.223

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBJPsych OpenSame topicHealthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsFrench-language works237,207