The phrase "abuse likelihood" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts discussing the probability or chances of abuse occurring in various situations, such as social work, psychology, or risk assessment.
Example: "The study aimed to assess the abuse likelihood among vulnerable populations in different environments."
Alternatives: "risk of abuse" or "probability of abuse".
This means taking into account not only the individual's present mental state, but also one's history of previous violence and substance abuse; likelihood of relapse; and record of adherence to medication and therapy.
No association was found between abuse likelihood and race [ 26, 35].
Non-ambulatory status was associated with increased abuse likelihood in both studies examining this association [ 26, 30].
In 2 of 3 studies, diaphyseal fractures were associated with decreased abuse likelihood, compared to other fracture types (Table 6) [ 2, 30, 35].
Male gender and Medicaid/uninsured status were each associated with increased likelihood of abuse likelihood in only one [ 2, 32] of several studies examining these associations [ 22, 26, 28, 30, 35].
Femur fracture type and position were, in general, not significantly associated with abuse, with the exception that diaphyseal fractures and mid/proximal diaphyseal fractures particularly might be associated with decreased abuse likelihood.
The children who were willing to delay gratification and waited to receive the second marshmallow ended up having higher SAT scores, lower levels of substance abuse, lower likelihood of obesity, better responses to stress, better social skills as reported by their parents, and generally better scores in a range of other life measures.
More specifically, reported drug use has been shown to be a predictor of subsequent suicide attempt in adolescents [ 10, 11] with a positive linear relationship between number of drugs abused and likelihood of suicide attempt [ 12].
Parental alcohol abuse increased that likelihood by quite a bit more -- 85percentt.
Refusal to provide a clear legal justification for the strikes increases the risk of abuse and the likelihood of harm to civilians.
They serve as first responders for animal cruelty cases that may indicate domestic abuse or the likelihood of future violence against humans (HSUS and ASPCA, among others).
