Back

Long-term risk of repeat hospital admission involving self-harm by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people: A retrospective cohort study

Leckning, B.; Borschmann, R.; Hirvonen, T.; Silburn, S. R.; Guthridge, S.; Robinson, G. W.

2023-08-15 psychiatry and clinical psychology
10.1101/2023.08.08.23293862 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundIdentify risk factors for repeat hospitalisation involving self-harm by Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory (NT), Australia. MethodsA retrospective cohort study of hospitalisations involving suicidal ideation and/or self-harm between 1 July 2001 and 31 December 2013 followed up to 31 December 2018. Survival analyses identified demographic and clinical characteristics associated with repeat hospitalisation involving self-harm. ResultsThe risk of repeat hospitalisation involving self-harm was higher (HR 1.39; 95% CI: 1.22-1.59) amongst Aboriginal (n=2,304) than non-Aboriginal people (n=2,087). Compared to suicidal ideation only, a higher risk of repetition was observed for any self-harm method (aHR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.37-2.12) amongst Aboriginal people and self-poisoning only (aHR: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.13-1.85) amongst non-Aboriginal people. Previous substance misuse was associated with a higher risk of repeat hospitalisation involving self-harm for Aboriginal (aHR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.38-2.1) and non-Aboriginal (aHR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.14-2.25) people. For non-Aboriginal people, several mental health diagnoses were associated with higher risks of repetition. LimitationsThe use of routinely collected administrative data limits analysis to only coded diagnoses and does not represent the full burden of self-harm and suicidal ideation in hospitals. ConclusionThe similarities and differences in long-term risk of repeat hospitalisation involving self-harm between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people pose distinct challenges for clinical management and prevention. The results emphasise the importance of comprehensive psychosocial assessment to properly understand the interplay of individual and contextual influences and highlights the need to better understand the availability and effectiveness of culturally tailored clinical interventions and community-based solutions.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.