MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281992228 · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00151-1

Intimate partner violence, suicidality, and self-harm: a probability sample survey of the general population in England

2022· article· en· W4281992228 on OpenAlexaff
Sally McManus, Sylvia Walby, Estela Capelas Barbosa, Louis Appleby, Traolach Brugha, Paul Bebbington, Elizabeth A. Cook, Duleeka Knipe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Psychiatry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public Health
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectoratePublic Health AgencyDepartment of Health and Social CareHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationScottish GovernmentElizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research, University of BristolNatural Environment Research CouncilEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationHealth FoundationWellcome TrustDepartment for Employment and Learning, Northern Ireland
KeywordsHarmPopulationPoison controlSuicide preventionSample (material)Injury preventionHuman factors and ergonomicsOccupational safety and healthPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a recognised risk factor for psychiatric disorders. There is little current evidence on IPV and self-harm and suicidality, and we therefore aimed to investigate the associations between experience of lifetime and past-year IPV with suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt, and self-harm in the past year. METHODS: We analysed the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey of 7058 adults (aged ≥16 years) in England, which used a multistage random probability sampling design and involved face-to-face interviews. Participants were asked about experience of physical violence and sexual, economic, and emotional abuse from a current or former partner, and about suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and self-harm. Other adversities were recorded through an adapted version of the List of Threatening Experiences. Multivariable logistic regression models quantified associations between different indicators of lifetime and past-year IPV, with past-year non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. All analyses were weighted. FINDINGS: Using weighted percentages, we found that a fifth (21·4%) of 7058 adults reported lifetime experience of IPV, and that 27·2% of women and 15·3% of men had experienced IPV. Among women, 19·6% had ever experienced emotional IPV, 18·7% physical IPV, 8·5% economic IPV, and 3·7% sexual IPV, which was higher than in men (8·6%, 9·3%, 3·6%, and 0·3%, respectively). Findings for ethnicity were unclear. Lifetime prevalence of IPV was higher in those living in rented accommodation or deprived neighbourhoods. Among people who had attempted suicide in the past year, 49·7% had ever experienced IPV and 23·1% had experienced IPV in the past year (including 34·8% of women and 9·4% of men). After adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, and lifetime experience of adversities, the odds ratio of a past-year suicide attempt were 2·82 (95% CI 1·54-5·17) times higher in those who have ever experienced IPV, compared with those who had not. Fully adjusted odds ratios for past-year self-harm (2·20, 95% CI 1·37-3·53) and suicidal thoughts (1·85, 1·39-2·46) were also raised in those who had ever experienced IPV. INTERPRETATION: IPV is common in England, especially among women, and is strongly associated with self-harm and suicidality. People presenting to services in suicidal distress or after self-harm should be asked about IPV. Interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and duration of IPV might protect and improve the lives of people at risk of self-harm and suicide. FUNDING: UK Prevention Research Partnership.

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)0.003
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 score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations116
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet PsychiatrySame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207