I would believe this, but based on data design… it is possible that IF they had a control group AND that group with no hospitalization had higher suicide rates than hospital group, then we could say hospital lowered rates…but since there was no control…really can’t say anything causal.
Thank you for sharing and for the insights however, the conclusions drawn by the researcher as well as the summary by MIA cannot be made because of a confounding variable in the design.
The researchers recognized and took out all people who clearly met a certain criteria to be hospitalized, so we don’t need to address them. The roughly 43% though that was left to clinical discretion is what we’re focused upon. What you have are patients who come present a certain risk level and clinicians that viewed them as a higher risk level and chose to hospitalize them, later showed to have more suicide attempts and other problems post hospitalization. These our correlational relationships, but both the researchers and Mia reviewer are making causal conclusions. You can’t say that the hospitalization increased the level of suicide and other problems, cuz it could be very well that it was V accuracy of the clinician to recognize they had more severe pathology, and that severe pathology was the cause.
In order to make the conclusions that they’re making, you would need another third control group where you have clinician Discretions, but all of them are not hospitalized. You then would compare the group that was under consideration for hospitalization that all were released, and compare that rate of suicide and other problems to the group that was hospitalized. If, if, you find that the group that was hospitalized now have a higher rate of suicide and other problems, compared to the control group who otherwise would have been left to discretion but we’re all released, then you could say that was true. However, if the group that was evaluated and left to clinician determination, but all were released, and their suicide rate matches that of the group that were hospitalized, then you can’t say it’s due to the hospitalization.
The fact that people are hospitalized, potential loss of job, potential loss of autonomy, potential new mistrust within the relationships of clinicians and or possibly the people who call the police and or did the petition to have them hospitalized, all those factors absolutely and clearly could increase a loss of hope, suicide ideation and or behavior, and a host of other problems. On Prima fascia, it totally makes sense, however the data obtained really can’t be used without that control group to compare it to. Otherwise you’re simply saying when clinicians felt that somebody was more pathological, post officeization they ended up being more pathology even after the hospital.
I would believe this, but based on data design… it is possible that IF they had a control group AND that group with no hospitalization had higher suicide rates than hospital group, then we could say hospital lowered rates…but since there was no control…really can’t say anything causal.
Report comment
Thank you for sharing and for the insights however, the conclusions drawn by the researcher as well as the summary by MIA cannot be made because of a confounding variable in the design.
The researchers recognized and took out all people who clearly met a certain criteria to be hospitalized, so we don’t need to address them. The roughly 43% though that was left to clinical discretion is what we’re focused upon. What you have are patients who come present a certain risk level and clinicians that viewed them as a higher risk level and chose to hospitalize them, later showed to have more suicide attempts and other problems post hospitalization. These our correlational relationships, but both the researchers and Mia reviewer are making causal conclusions. You can’t say that the hospitalization increased the level of suicide and other problems, cuz it could be very well that it was V accuracy of the clinician to recognize they had more severe pathology, and that severe pathology was the cause.
In order to make the conclusions that they’re making, you would need another third control group where you have clinician Discretions, but all of them are not hospitalized. You then would compare the group that was under consideration for hospitalization that all were released, and compare that rate of suicide and other problems to the group that was hospitalized. If, if, you find that the group that was hospitalized now have a higher rate of suicide and other problems, compared to the control group who otherwise would have been left to discretion but we’re all released, then you could say that was true. However, if the group that was evaluated and left to clinician determination, but all were released, and their suicide rate matches that of the group that were hospitalized, then you can’t say it’s due to the hospitalization.
The fact that people are hospitalized, potential loss of job, potential loss of autonomy, potential new mistrust within the relationships of clinicians and or possibly the people who call the police and or did the petition to have them hospitalized, all those factors absolutely and clearly could increase a loss of hope, suicide ideation and or behavior, and a host of other problems. On Prima fascia, it totally makes sense, however the data obtained really can’t be used without that control group to compare it to. Otherwise you’re simply saying when clinicians felt that somebody was more pathological, post officeization they ended up being more pathology even after the hospital.
Report comment