The association between involuntary alcohol treatment and subsequent emergency department visits and hospitalizations: a Bayesian analysis of treated patients and matched controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Many nations have provisions for involuntary treatment of alcohol dependence where the person is at serious risk of harm to themselves. To date, there has been little thorough evaluation of its effectiveness. This study aimed to determine if there were differences between involuntary and voluntary treatment for alcohol dependence on subsequent emergency and hospital care. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort design using linked routinely collected administrative data on health-care utilization. SETTING: Hospital and community-based alcohol treatment, New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 231 patients who were involuntarily treated for alcohol dependence and 231 matched controls who received treatment as usual within the period May 2012 to April 2018. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Involuntary treatment comprised a 28-day mandated hospital admission which included supervised withdrawal, comprehensive assessment, rehabilitation and support followed by voluntary aftercare support for up to 6 months. Treatment as usual comprised three not mutually exclusive forms of intensive voluntary alcohol treatment: withdrawal management, rehabilitation and pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence. MEASUREMENTS: Outcome measures: changes in the number of emergency department (ED) visits and number of unplanned hospital admissions 12 months before and 12 months after completion of index treatment. FINDINGS: Both groups showed a reduction in ED visits (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.56, 95% credible intervals (CrI) = 0.39-0.78) and unplanned hospital admissions (IRR = 0.49, 95% CrI = 0.37-0.65). There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (IRR = 0.77, 95% CrI = 0.58-1.03 for ED visits and IRR = 0.79, 95% CrI = 0.62-1.01 for hospital admissions). The Bayes factors were 0.925 and 0.936 for ED visits and unplanned hospital admissions, respectively, interpreted as weak evidence in support of the null hypothesis of no difference between the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Involuntary treatment of alcohol dependence was associated with reduced health service utilization in the year following treatment, and the outcomes did not differ from those of a matched control group.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".