Computing 3-Step Theory of Suicide Factor Scores From Veterans Health Administration Clinical Progress Notes.

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Esther L Meerwijk, Asqar S Shotqara, Andrea K Finlay, Ruth M Reeves, Suzanne R Tamang, Mark A Ilgen, Alex H S Harris
{"title":"Computing 3-Step Theory of Suicide Factor Scores From Veterans Health Administration Clinical Progress Notes.","authors":"Esther L Meerwijk, Asqar S Shotqara, Andrea K Finlay, Ruth M Reeves, Suzanne R Tamang, Mark A Ilgen, Alex H S Harris","doi":"10.1111/sltb.70004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Literature on how to translate information extracted from clinical progress notes into numeric scores for 3-step theory of suicide (3ST) factors is nonexistent. We determined which scoring option would best discriminate between patients who will attempt or die by suicide and patients with neither suicidal ideation nor attempts, and we tested hypotheses related to the 3ST.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used terminology-driven natural language processing (NLP) to extract information from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinical progress notes. Counts of those extractions served as input to evaluate candidate scoring options for each 3ST factor (psychological pain, hopelessness, connectedness, capability for suicide). Logistic regression models adjusted for common demographic characteristics were used to test the 3ST hypotheses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Optimal contrasts between groups were obtained with P - A for psychological pain, hopelessness, and capability for suicide, and <math> <semantics><mrow><mi>A</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mfenced><mrow><mi>P</mi> <mo>+</mo> <mn>1</mn></mrow> </mfenced> </mrow> <annotation>$$ A/\\left(P+1\\right) $$</annotation></semantics> </math> for connectedness, where P and A, respectively, indicate the patient-level number of extractions indicating presence and absence of the factor.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Additional research is necessary to verify whether our conclusions hold in a cohort that is more reflective of the general VHA population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Terminology-driven 3ST factor scores discriminate patients who attempt or die by suicide from patients without suicidal ideation or attempts. Our results corroborate the validity of the 3ST for VHA patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":39684,"journal":{"name":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","volume":"55 1","pages":"e70004"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.70004","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Literature on how to translate information extracted from clinical progress notes into numeric scores for 3-step theory of suicide (3ST) factors is nonexistent. We determined which scoring option would best discriminate between patients who will attempt or die by suicide and patients with neither suicidal ideation nor attempts, and we tested hypotheses related to the 3ST.

Methods: We used terminology-driven natural language processing (NLP) to extract information from Veterans Health Administration (VHA) clinical progress notes. Counts of those extractions served as input to evaluate candidate scoring options for each 3ST factor (psychological pain, hopelessness, connectedness, capability for suicide). Logistic regression models adjusted for common demographic characteristics were used to test the 3ST hypotheses.

Results: Optimal contrasts between groups were obtained with P - A for psychological pain, hopelessness, and capability for suicide, and A / P + 1 $$ A/\left(P+1\right) $$ for connectedness, where P and A, respectively, indicate the patient-level number of extractions indicating presence and absence of the factor.

Limitations: Additional research is necessary to verify whether our conclusions hold in a cohort that is more reflective of the general VHA population.

Conclusion: Terminology-driven 3ST factor scores discriminate patients who attempt or die by suicide from patients without suicidal ideation or attempts. Our results corroborate the validity of the 3ST for VHA patients.

从退伍军人健康管理局临床进展记录中计算自杀因素得分的三步理论。
背景:关于如何将临床进展记录中提取的信息转化为自杀三步理论(3ST)因素的数值评分的文献尚不存在。我们确定了哪种评分选项最能区分有自杀企图或死于自杀的患者和没有自杀意念或自杀企图的患者,并检验了与3ST相关的假设。方法:采用术语驱动的自然语言处理(NLP)方法提取退伍军人健康管理局(VHA)临床进展记录中的信息。这些提取的计数作为输入,用于评估每个3ST因素(心理痛苦、绝望、连通性、自杀能力)的候选评分选项。采用调整了共同人口统计学特征的Logistic回归模型来检验3ST假设。结果:心理疼痛、绝望和自杀能力方面的P - A和连通性方面的A / P + 1 $$ A/\left(P+1\right) $$获得了组间的最佳对比,其中P和A分别表示患者水平的提取次数,表明存在或不存在该因素。局限性:需要进一步的研究来验证我们的结论是否在一个更能反映VHA一般人群的队列中成立。结论:术语驱动的3ST因子评分区分了企图自杀或死于自杀的患者与没有自杀意念或企图自杀的患者。我们的结果证实了3ST对VHA患者的有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
96
期刊介绍: An excellent resource for researchers as well as students, Social Cognition features reports on empirical research, self-perception, self-concept, social neuroscience, person-memory integration, social schemata, the development of social cognition, and the role of affect in memory and perception. Three broad concerns define the scope of the journal: - The processes underlying the perception, memory, and judgment of social stimuli - The effects of social, cultural, and affective factors on the processing of information - The behavioral and interpersonal consequences of cognitive processes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信