Violence in persons with and without psychosis in the Czech Republic: risk and protective factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prevent violence among persons with psychosis, further knowledge of the correlates and risk factors is needed. These risk factors may vary by nation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study examined factors associated with violent assaults in 158 patients with psychosis and in a matched control sample of 158 adults without psychosis in the Czech Republic. Participants completed interviews and questionnaires to confirm diagnoses, report on aggressive behavior, current and past victimization, and substance use. Additional information was collected from collateral informants and clinical files. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to identify factors that were independently associated with committing an assault in past 6 months. RESULTS: The presence of a psychotic disorder was associated with an increased risk of assaults (OR =3.80; 95% CI 2.060-7.014). Additional risk factors in persons with and without psychosis included recent physical victimization (OR =7.09; 95% CI 3.922-12.819), childhood maltreatment (OR =3.15; 95% CI 1.877-5.271), the level of drug use (OR =1.13; 95% CI 1.063-1.197), and the level of alcohol use (OR =1.04; 95% CI 1.000-1.084). Increasing age (OR =0.96; 95% CI 0.942-0.978) and employment (OR =0.30; 95% CI 0.166-0.540) were protective factors. Except for drug use, which appeared to have greater effect on violence in the group without psychosis, there were no major differences between patients and controls in these risk and protective factors. To our knowledge, this is the first published comparison of assault predictors between schizophrenia patients and matched controls. CONCLUSION: Recent physical victimization was the strongest predictor of assaults. Our findings are consistent with the emerging empirical evidence pointing to the very important role of victimization in eliciting violent behavior by the victims. Some current prediction instruments may underestimate the risk of violent behavior as they take little account of current victimization. Although psychosis per se elevates the risk of violence, other risk and protective factors for violence in persons with psychosis and comparison group are largely similar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".