MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385186021 · doi:10.2196/42803

Intentional Self-Harm Among US Veterans With Traumatic Brain Injury or Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Retrospective Cohort Study From 2008 to 2017

2023· article· en· W4385186021 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bhanu Pratap Singh Rawat, Joel I. Reisman, Terri K. Pogoda, Weisong Liu, Subendhu Rongali, Robert H. Aseltine, Kun Chen, Jack Tsai, Dan R. Berlowitz, Hong Yu, Kathleen F. Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineVeterans AffairsPsychiatryInjury preventionPoison controlOccupational safety and healthComorbiditySuicide preventionCohortMarital statusPopulationEmergency medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Veterans with a history of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and/or posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may be at increased risk of suicide attempts and other forms of intentional self-harm as compared to veterans without TBI or PTSD. OBJECTIVE: Using administrative data from the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), we studied associations between TBI and PTSD diagnoses, and subsequent diagnoses of intentional self-harm among US veterans who used VHA health care between 2008 and 2017. METHODS: All veterans with encounters or hospitalizations for intentional self-harm were assigned "index dates" corresponding to the date of the first related visit; among those without intentional self-harm, we randomly selected a date from among the veteran's health care encounters to match the distribution of case index dates over the 10-year period. We then examined the prevalence of TBI and PTSD diagnoses within the 5-year period prior to veterans' index dates. TBI, PTSD, and intentional self-harm were identified using International Classification of Diseases diagnosis and external cause of injury codes from inpatient and outpatient VHA encounters. We stratified analyses by veterans' average yearly VHA utilization in the 5-year period before their index date (low, medium, or high). Variations in prevalence and odds of intentional self-harm diagnoses were compared by veterans' prior TBI and PTSD diagnosis status (TBI only, PTSD only, and comorbid TBI/PTSD) for each VHA utilization stratum. Multivariable models adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, Department of Veterans Affairs service-connection status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index scores. RESULTS: About 6.7 million veterans with at least two VHA visits in the 5-year period before their index dates were included in the analyses; 86,644 had at least one intentional self-harm diagnosis during the study period. During the periods prior to veterans' index dates, 93,866 were diagnosed with TBI only; 892,420 with PTSD only; and 102,549 with comorbid TBI/PTSD. Across all three VHA utilization strata, the prevalence of intentional self-harm diagnoses was higher among veterans diagnosed with TBI, PTSD, or TBI/PTSD than among veterans with neither diagnosis. The observed difference was most pronounced among veterans in the high VHA utilization stratum. The prevalence of intentional self-harm was six times higher among those with comorbid TBI/PTSD (6778/58,295, 11.63%) than among veterans with neither TBI nor PTSD (21,979/1,144,991, 1.92%). Adjusted odds ratios suggested that, after accounting for potential confounders, veterans with TBI, PTSD, or comorbid TBI/PTSD had higher odds of self-harm compared to veterans without these diagnoses. Among veterans with high VHA utilization, those with comorbid TBI/PTSD were 4.26 (95% CI 4.15-4.38) times more likely to receive diagnoses for intentional self-harm than veterans with neither diagnosis. This pattern was similar for veterans with low and medium VHA utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Veterans with TBI and/or PTSD diagnoses, compared to those with neither diagnosis, were substantially more likely to be subsequently diagnosed with intentional self-harm between 2008 and 2017. These associations were most pronounced among veterans who used VHA health care most frequently. These findings suggest a need for suicide prevention efforts targeted at veterans with these diagnoses.

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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207