Self-harm presentations to hospital trauma centre emergency departments during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns regarding increased suicide-related behaviours. We compared characteristics and counts of Emergency Department (ED) presentations for self-harm, an important suicide-related outcome, during versus prior to the pandemic's first year. We included patients presenting with self-harm to the ED of two trauma centres in Toronto, Canada. Time series models compared intra-pandemic (March 2020-February 2021) presentation counts to predictions from pre-pandemic data. The self-harm proportion of ED presentations was compared between the intra-pandemic period and preceding three years. A retrospective chart review of eligible patients seen from March 2019-February 2021 compared pre- vs. intra-pandemic patient and injury characteristics. While monthly intra-pandemic self-harm counts were largely within expected ranges, the self-harm proportion of total presentations increased. Being widowed (OR=9.46; 95 %CI=1.10-81.08), employment/financial stressors (OR=1.65, 95 %CI=1.06-2.58), job loss (OR=3.83; 95 %CI=1.36-10.76), and chest-stabbing self-harm (OR=2.50; 95 %CI=1.16-5.39) were associated with intra-pandemic presentations. Intra-pandemic self-harm was also associated with Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission (OR=2.18, 95 %CI=1.41-3.38). In summary, while the number of self-harm presentations to these trauma centres did not increase during the early pandemic, their proportion was increased. The association of intra-pandemic self-harm with variables indicating medically severe injury, economic stressors, and being widowed may inform future suicide and self-harm prevention strategies.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".