Emergency department presentations for deliberate self-harm and suicidal ideation in 25–39 year olds following agency-notified child maltreatment: results from the Childhood Adversity and Lifetime Morbidity (CALM) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To compare prospective reports of child maltreatment (CM) with emergency department (ED) presentations for deliberate self-harm (DSH) and suicidal ideation in individuals aged between 25 and 39 years old. METHODS: Linked records between the Mater-University of Queensland Study of Pregnancy birth cohort and Queensland administrative health data were used, which included notifications to child protection agencies for CM. ED presentations for individuals aged between 25 and 39 years of age for suicidal ideation, suicidal behaviour or poisoning by paracetamol or psychotropic medications where the intention was unclear were examined using logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 609 (10.1%) individuals were the subject of one or more CM notifications for neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse before the age of 15 years. Of these, 250 (4.1%) presented at least once to ED for DSH and/or suicidal ideation between 25 and 39 years of age. In adjusted analysis, any notification of CM was associated with significantly increased odds of presenting to ED for these reasons (aOR = 2.80; 95% CI = 2.04-3.84). In sensitivity analyses, any notification of CM increased the odds of the combined outcome of DSH and suicidal ideation by 275% (aOR = 2.75; 95% CI = 1.96-4.06) and increased the odds of DSH alone by 269% (aOR = 2.69; 95% CI = 1.65-4.41). CONCLUSIONS: All CM types (including emotional abuse and neglect) were associated with ED presentations for DSH and suicidal ideation in individuals between 25 and 39 years of age. These findings have important implications for the prevention of DSH, suicidal ideation and other health outcomes. They also underscore the importance of trauma-informed care in ED for all individuals presenting with DSH and suicidal ideation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".