Prevalence and Characteristics of Violence against Paramedics in a Single Canadian Site
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Violence against paramedics has been described as a ‘serious public health problem’ but one that remains ‘vastly underreported’, owing to an organizational culture that stigmatizes reporting–hindering efforts at risk mitigation in addition to creating a gap in research. Leveraging a novel reporting process developed after extensive stakeholder consultation and embedded within the electronic patient care record, our objective was to provide a descriptive profile of violence against paramedics in a single paramedic service in Ontario, Canada. Between 1 February 2021 and 31 January 2023, a total of 374 paramedics in Peel Region (48% of the workforce) generated 941 violence reports, of which 40% documented physical (n = 364) or sexual (n = 19) assault. The violence was typically perpetrated by patients (78%) and primarily took place at the scene of the 9-1-1 call (47%); however, violent behavior frequently persisted or recurred while in transit to hospital and after arrival. Collectively, mental health, alcohol, or drug use were listed as contributing circumstances in 83% of the violence reports. In all, 81 paramedics were physically harmed because of an assault. On average, our data correspond to a paramedic filing a violence report every 18 h, being physically assaulted every 46 h, and injured every 9 days.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".