Outpatient mental health service use in major trauma survivors: A population-based cohort study from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mental health is recognized as an important outcome in major trauma survivors. There are limited data on how and when survivors access mental health services. Our objectives were to determine the frequency, timing, and factors associated with outpatient mental health service utilization in major trauma survivors. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data on patients treated for major trauma in Ontario between 2009 and 2017. All trauma survivors were included in the cohort, and composite rates of outpatient mental health service use (family doctor, psychiatrist, or emergency department visits) were compared in the 3 years preinjury and postinjury. We used an exposure crossover study design and negative binomial regression with generalized estimating equations for the analysis. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify patient characteristics associated with mental health service use during the follow-up period. RESULTS: There were 37,260 patients included in the cohort, predominantly men (70.8%) from urban areas (84.8%) suffering blunt trauma (89.7%). Among the patients, 47.4% used mental health services during the preinjury period and 61.8% during the postinjury period (absolute increase of 14.4%). Compared with the 3 years preinjury, the rate of mental health service use increased by 80% (rate ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.75-1.77) in the 3 years following injury. Most survivors (62.2%) used services within the first year following discharge. Postinjury mental health service use (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-3.7) was most strongly associated with preinjury mental health service use. CONCLUSION: Preinjury and postinjury outpatient mental health service use is common in trauma patients, with preinjury service use predictive of ongoing service use. Mental health concerns should be an expected outcome of major trauma and efforts made to implement and expand access to services for injury survivors across trauma systems. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".