MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092564976 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckaa165.1268

Child abuse and all-cause mortality in the Canadian population

2020· article· en· W3092564976 on OpenAlexaffabout
Asmita Bhattarai, Gina Dimitropoulos, Jeanne V.A. Williams, Andrew G. M. Bulloch, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychosocialPhysical abuseChild abuseDemographySexual abuseHazard ratioPopulationPsychiatryPoison controlInjury preventionConfidence intervalMedical emergencyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background A history of child abuse is common and is associated with the later occurrence of risky health behaviors, mental disorders, and chronic conditions, strongly suggesting that child abuse may be associated with elevated mortality. However, most of the literature on child abuse has studied psychosocial/behavioral or medical outcomes and have not addressed mortality directly. Methods Data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey, linked to the Canadian Vital Statistics Database, were used in the analysis. The CCHS-2012 interview (n = 19,830) retrospectively assessed childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and witnessing intimate partner violence before the age of 16. Each type of abuse was analyzed separately using Cox proportional hazards models for all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with and without adjustment for covariates. Results An effect on mortality was observed among men for witnessing interpersonal violence (age-adjusted HR 2.47, 95% CI 1.48-4.12), and severe physical abuse (age-adjusted HR 2.3, 95% CI 1.21-4.36). In each case, the association was not significant for women; the age-adjusted HRs being 0.93 (95% CI: 0.51-1.70) and 0.59 (95%CI: 0.64-2.60) respectively. The association was seen only among those reporting frequent abuse ( > =10 times) and weakened (became not significant) with adjustment for covariates that may mediate the association such as smoking and chronic conditions. Conclusions As predicted by a broader literature on childhood adversity, child abuse increases the risk of mortality. The effect was significant for severe physical abuse in men, but imprecision due to a limited number of deaths may have rendered other associations non-significant. The study provides some degree of confirmation that child abuse contributes to later life mortality. Hence public health strategies that prevent child abuse and mitigate the harms of the mediators might prevent mortality. Key messages Witnessing intimate partner violence is just as harmful as actually experiencing physical abuse. Preventing children's exposure to violence in family is valuable in preventing mortality in adulthood. Enhancing child abuse prevention programs and mitigating the harmful effects of the mediators such as smoking, substance use, and chronic conditions is important in reducing mortality in adult life.

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)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207