就医者重复自残的风险:临床风险评估模型 (OxSET) 的开发与验证。

0 PSYCHIATRY
Seena Fazel,Maria D L A Vazquez-Montes,Tyra Lagerberg,Yasmina Molero,Jane Walker,Michael Sharpe,Henrik Larsson,Bo Runeson,Paul Lichtenstein,Thomas R Fanshawe
{"title":"就医者重复自残的风险:临床风险评估模型 (OxSET) 的开发与验证。","authors":"Seena Fazel,Maria D L A Vazquez-Montes,Tyra Lagerberg,Yasmina Molero,Jane Walker,Michael Sharpe,Henrik Larsson,Bo Runeson,Paul Lichtenstein,Thomas R Fanshawe","doi":"10.1136/bmjment-2024-301180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nA self-harm episode is a major risk factor for repeat self-harm. Existing tools to assess and predict repeat self-harm have major methodological limitations, and few are externally validated.\r\n\r\nOBJECTIVE\r\nTo develop and validate a risk assessment model of repeat self-harm up to 6 months after an episode of non-fatal self-harm that resulted in an emergency visit to hospital or specialised care.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nUsing Swedish national registers, we identified 53 172 people aged≥10 years who self-harmed during 2008-2012. We allocated 37 523 individuals to development (2820 or 7.5% repeat self-harm incidents within 6 months) and 15 649 to geographic validation (1373 repeat episodes) samples, based on region of residence. In a temporal validation of people who self-harmed during 2018-2019, we identified 25 036 individuals (2886 repeat episodes). We fitted a multivariable accelerated failure time model to predict risk of repeat self-harm.\r\n\r\nFINDINGS\r\nIn the external validations (n=40 685), rates of repeat self-harm were 8.8%-11.5% over 6 months. The final model retained 17 factors. Calibration and discrimination were similar in both validation samples, with observed-to-expected ratio=1.15 (95% CI=1.09 to 1.21) and c-statistic=0.72 (95% CI=0.70 to 0.73) in the geographical validation. At 6 months and a 10% risk cut-off, sensitivity was 51.5% (95% CI=48.8% to 54.2%) and specificity was 80.7% (95% CI=80.1% to 81.4%) in geographic validation; corresponding values were 56.9% (95% CI=55.1% to 58.7%) and 76.0% (95% CI=75.5% to 76.6%) in temporal validation. Discrimination was slightly worse at the 1-month prediction horizon (c-statistics of 0.66-0.68).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nUsing mostly routinely collected data, simple risk assessment models and tools can provide acceptable levels of accuracy for repeat of self-harm.\r\n\r\nCLINICAL IMPLICATIONS\r\nThis risk model (OXford SElf-harm repeat tool) may assist clinical decision-making.","PeriodicalId":72434,"journal":{"name":"BMJ mental health","volume":"44 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk of repeat self-harm among individuals presenting to healthcare services: development and validation of a clinical risk assessment model (OxSET).\",\"authors\":\"Seena Fazel,Maria D L A Vazquez-Montes,Tyra Lagerberg,Yasmina Molero,Jane Walker,Michael Sharpe,Henrik Larsson,Bo Runeson,Paul Lichtenstein,Thomas R Fanshawe\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjment-2024-301180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\r\\nA self-harm episode is a major risk factor for repeat self-harm. Existing tools to assess and predict repeat self-harm have major methodological limitations, and few are externally validated.\\r\\n\\r\\nOBJECTIVE\\r\\nTo develop and validate a risk assessment model of repeat self-harm up to 6 months after an episode of non-fatal self-harm that resulted in an emergency visit to hospital or specialised care.\\r\\n\\r\\nMETHODS\\r\\nUsing Swedish national registers, we identified 53 172 people aged≥10 years who self-harmed during 2008-2012. We allocated 37 523 individuals to development (2820 or 7.5% repeat self-harm incidents within 6 months) and 15 649 to geographic validation (1373 repeat episodes) samples, based on region of residence. In a temporal validation of people who self-harmed during 2018-2019, we identified 25 036 individuals (2886 repeat episodes). We fitted a multivariable accelerated failure time model to predict risk of repeat self-harm.\\r\\n\\r\\nFINDINGS\\r\\nIn the external validations (n=40 685), rates of repeat self-harm were 8.8%-11.5% over 6 months. The final model retained 17 factors. Calibration and discrimination were similar in both validation samples, with observed-to-expected ratio=1.15 (95% CI=1.09 to 1.21) and c-statistic=0.72 (95% CI=0.70 to 0.73) in the geographical validation. At 6 months and a 10% risk cut-off, sensitivity was 51.5% (95% CI=48.8% to 54.2%) and specificity was 80.7% (95% CI=80.1% to 81.4%) in geographic validation; corresponding values were 56.9% (95% CI=55.1% to 58.7%) and 76.0% (95% CI=75.5% to 76.6%) in temporal validation. Discrimination was slightly worse at the 1-month prediction horizon (c-statistics of 0.66-0.68).\\r\\n\\r\\nCONCLUSIONS\\r\\nUsing mostly routinely collected data, simple risk assessment models and tools can provide acceptable levels of accuracy for repeat of self-harm.\\r\\n\\r\\nCLINICAL IMPLICATIONS\\r\\nThis risk model (OXford SElf-harm repeat tool) may assist clinical decision-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72434,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ mental health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjment-2024-301180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景自残事件是导致重复自残的一个主要风险因素。现有的评估和预测重复自残的工具在方法上有很大的局限性,而且很少经过外部验证。目的开发并验证一个重复自残风险评估模型,该模型可在导致急诊就医或专科护理的非致命性自残事件发生后 6 个月内使用。根据居住地区,我们将 37 523 人分配到发展样本(2820 人或 7.5% 的人在 6 个月内重复发生自残事件),将 15 649 人分配到地域验证样本(1373 人重复发生自残事件)。在对 2018-2019 年期间自残者的时间验证中,我们确定了 25 036 人(2886 次重复发作)。我们拟合了一个多变量加速失败时间模型来预测重复自残的风险。结果在外部验证中(n=40 685),6 个月内重复自残率为 8.8%-11.5%。最终模型保留了 17 个因素。两个验证样本的校准和区分度相似,在地理验证中,观察值与预期值之比为1.15(95% CI=1.09至1.21),c统计量为0.72(95% CI=0.70至0.73)。在6个月和10%风险截止时,地理验证的灵敏度为51.5%(95% CI=48.8%至54.2%),特异性为80.7%(95% CI=80.1%至81.4%);时间验证的相应数值为56.9%(95% CI=55.1%至58.7%)和76.0%(95% CI=75.5%至76.6%)。结论利用大部分常规收集的数据,简单的风险评估模型和工具可以为重复自残提供可接受的准确度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Risk of repeat self-harm among individuals presenting to healthcare services: development and validation of a clinical risk assessment model (OxSET).
BACKGROUND A self-harm episode is a major risk factor for repeat self-harm. Existing tools to assess and predict repeat self-harm have major methodological limitations, and few are externally validated. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a risk assessment model of repeat self-harm up to 6 months after an episode of non-fatal self-harm that resulted in an emergency visit to hospital or specialised care. METHODS Using Swedish national registers, we identified 53 172 people aged≥10 years who self-harmed during 2008-2012. We allocated 37 523 individuals to development (2820 or 7.5% repeat self-harm incidents within 6 months) and 15 649 to geographic validation (1373 repeat episodes) samples, based on region of residence. In a temporal validation of people who self-harmed during 2018-2019, we identified 25 036 individuals (2886 repeat episodes). We fitted a multivariable accelerated failure time model to predict risk of repeat self-harm. FINDINGS In the external validations (n=40 685), rates of repeat self-harm were 8.8%-11.5% over 6 months. The final model retained 17 factors. Calibration and discrimination were similar in both validation samples, with observed-to-expected ratio=1.15 (95% CI=1.09 to 1.21) and c-statistic=0.72 (95% CI=0.70 to 0.73) in the geographical validation. At 6 months and a 10% risk cut-off, sensitivity was 51.5% (95% CI=48.8% to 54.2%) and specificity was 80.7% (95% CI=80.1% to 81.4%) in geographic validation; corresponding values were 56.9% (95% CI=55.1% to 58.7%) and 76.0% (95% CI=75.5% to 76.6%) in temporal validation. Discrimination was slightly worse at the 1-month prediction horizon (c-statistics of 0.66-0.68). CONCLUSIONS Using mostly routinely collected data, simple risk assessment models and tools can provide acceptable levels of accuracy for repeat of self-harm. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS This risk model (OXford SElf-harm repeat tool) may assist clinical decision-making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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