An Investigation of Social and Behavioural Factors Associated with Psychiatric Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Social adversities are prevalent among those with psychiatric disorders and may be involved in poor outcomes among patients receiving treatment. Identification of social risk factors influencing outcomes will help provide targeted interventions for at-risk patients. This thesis explored the role of social and behavioural factors in relation to adverse psychiatric outcomes, specifically relapse to substance use and attempted suicide. Methods: We used scoping study methodology to perform a comprehensive review to identify the gaps in the literature examining social functioning and MMT outcomes. This review informed our primary cohort study examining the association between social factors and continued opioid use in MMT. Lastly, we conducted a case-control study to identify risk factors for suicide attempts by comparing psychiatric patients with and without suicide attempt history (cases and controls, respectively). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted in both primary studies to examine the association between predictors and outcomes. Results: The review included 101 observational studies and determined the need for further research on social factors and MMT outcomes among a current sample of Canadian patients. Our cohort study included 1043 participants (mean age=38.4 years, standard deviation [SD]=11.06); 45.8% women) to investigate this and found that unemployment, criminal activity and interpersonal conflict with friends significantly increased odds of illicit opioid use. In examining risk factors for suicide attempts, we recruited 146 cases (mean age=45.18 years, SD=14.70 years; 55% female) and 104 control participants (mean age=45.01 years, SD=14.23 years; 50% female). No sociodemographic differences existed between groups, however higher impulsivity and borderline personality symptoms significantly increased odds of attempted suicide. Conclusions: Findings from these studies may indicate the need for structured monitoring of at-risk psychiatric patients. It may be important to develop tools to measure social and behavioural factors in clinical settings and promote further integration of social services in treatment settings.
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 | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".