MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292513284 · doi:10.7759/cureus.27858

How Residing in a Long-Term Care Facility Affects Suicidal Risk in Patients With Dementia: A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4292513284 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Narges Joshaghani, Nicole Villa, Omar Badla, Raman Goit, Samia E Saddik, Sarah N Dawood, Ahmad M Rabih, Ahmad Mohammed, Aishwarya Raman, Manish Uprety, Maria Jose Calero, Maria Resah B Villanueva, Safeera Khan

Bibliographic record

VenueCureus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaObservational studySystematic reviewCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialCritical appraisalCohort studyMEDLINELong-term careCohortPoison controlPsychiatryFamily medicineGerontologyEmergency medicineAlternative medicineSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aims to review the current literature regarding the association between suicide risk in patients aged 65 years or over with dementia residing in long-term care facilities (LTCs). We also evaluate the most common methods of suicide and protective versus risk factors of nursing home (NH) life on suicide behavior in patients with dementia. Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we performed a systematic review of the relevant free full-text articles found in PubMed, Pub Psych, Cochrane library, and Science Direct up until April 4, 2022. Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and keywords (nursing home, long-term care facility, suicide, self-injurious behavior, dementia), were used to search for full-text randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies, systematic reviews, and studies published in the English language in the last 12 years, focused on human subjects 65 years and older were selected based on predefined eligibility criteria. The search yielded 57,909 articles, of which 12 studies met our inclusion criteria. The articles were subjected to quality appraisal by two reviewers. We used the Newcastle Ottawa scale (NOS) for quality assessment with a mean score of six for 12 observational studies used in this paper. Of the included reports, six were cross-sectional, five were cohort, and one was case-control. Four articles carefully examine the relationship between dementia and suicide, and all confirm the hypothesis that staying in LTCs reduces the risk of suicide in patients with dementia. However, the rest of the articles generally determine a higher risk of suicide in demented patients and describe male gender, non-Hispanic white race, younger age, newly diagnosed with dementia within one-year, mild dementia, comorbidities, depression, previous history of suicidal behavior, low social support and unstable family relationship as the risk factors of suicide in this population. In comparison, extended stay in NHs and other kinds of LTCs, severe dementia with impaired insight, older age, comorbid schizophrenia, physical disability with limitation and more difficulty preparing and executing a suicide plan, positive and robust social relationships, access to professional caregivers and high frequency of visits from relatives marked as the protective factors. Existing research on suicide risk in long-term care facility residents with dementia is limited. However, due to the increase in dementia rates that require people to reside in NHs and on the other hand, considering the multiple risk factors of suicide in the elderly living in such places, the need for a screening system for identifying people at suicide risk and performing preventive therapeutic and behavioral interventions is well felt.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCureus→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→