Testing the Impact of the #chatsafe Intervention on Young People’s Ability to Communicate Safely About Suicide on Social Media: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Suicide is the leading cause of death among Australians. One commonly cited explanation is the impact of social media, in particular, the ways in which young people use social media to communicate about their own experiences and their exposure to suicide-related content posted by others. Guidelines designed to assist mainstream media to safely report about suicide are widespread. Until recently, no guidelines existed that targeted social media or young people. In response, we developed the #chatsafe guidelines and a supporting social media campaign, which together make up the #chatsafe intervention. The intervention was tested in a pilot study with positive results. However, the study was limited by the lack of a control group. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of the #chatsafe social media intervention on young people's safety and confidence when communicating on the web about suicide. METHODS: The study employs a pragmatic, parallel, superiority randomized controlled design. It will be conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement over 18 months. Participants will be 400 young people aged 16-25 years (200 per arm). Participants will be recruited via social media advertising and assessed at 3 time points: time 1-baseline; time 2-8-week postintervention commencement; and time 3-4-week postintervention. They will be asked to complete a weekly survey to monitor safety and evaluate each piece of social media content. The intervention comprises an 8-week social media campaign including social media posts shared on public Instagram profiles. The intervention group will receive the #chatsafe suicide prevention content and the control group will receive sexual health content. Both groups will receive 24 pieces of content delivered to their mobile phones via text message. The primary outcome is safety when communicating on the web about suicide, as measured via the purpose-designed #chatsafe online safety questionnaire. Additional outcomes include willingness to intervene against suicide, internet self-efficacy, safety, and acceptability. RESULTS: The study was funded in November 2020, approved by the University of Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee on October 7, 2022, and prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials registry. Trial recruitment began in November 2022 and study completion is anticipated by June 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first randomized controlled trial internationally to test the impact of a social media intervention designed to equip young people to communicate safely on the web about suicide. Given the rising rates of youth suicide in Australia and the acceptability of social media among young people, incorporating social media-based interventions into the suicide prevention landscape is an obvious next step. This intervention, if effective, could also be extended internationally, thereby improving web-based safety for young people not just in Australia but globally. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622001397707; https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=384318. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/44300.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,057 | 0,055 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,008 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,014 | 0,010 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,012 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,077 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».