Formative Evaluation of Suicide Prevention Websites for Men: Qualitative Study with Men at Risk of Suicide and with Potential Gatekeepers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The suicide rate among men exceeds that of women worldwide. One important measure in suicide prevention for men is digital communication interventions, as they enable easy and anonymous access to information resources. This is especially important for men who might not be reached by traditional, in-person prevention methods. Thus, as part of an interdisciplinary project on suicide prevention for men, two specific digital communication prevention measures were developed: (1) a website to inform men at risk about suicide prevention, and (2) a website to educate potential gatekeepers who are in contact with men at risk of suicide about appropriate life-saving measures. Both websites needed evaluation to explore how they are perceived by (1) men and by (2) potential gatekeepers of men at risk of suicide. This is crucial, as existing research lacks formative evaluation that informs the development of intervention communication materials. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze whether these websites were perceived as (1) comprehensible and engaging, (2) authentic and trustworthy, as well as (3) useful by (potential) users. Furthermore, we examined (4) additional ideas for effective communication about suicide prevention. METHODS: We conducted (1) individual videoconference interviews with 24 men to evaluate the website and (2) four focus groups with 8 gatekeepers in each group (32 participants) to evaluate the online education program. The focus group sample was equally distributed regarding gender and age. Recruitment was conducted together with a field research partner who posted adverts on Facebook and Instagram (Meta) to reach as many potential participants as possible in an efficient way. All participants were asked to evaluate the intervention materials using a fictitious scenario of a man experiencing a mental health crisis before the interviews or focus groups took place. RESULTS: The videos were perceived as (1) catchy, comprehensible, and empathetic, but too long for a short introduction. A balanced mix of emotional and informative content was considered appropriate and helpful. The health information provided was perceived as (2) serious and trustworthy due to citing scientific institutions and video material of men who had experienced suicidal ideation. (3) The intervention's applicability for men experiencing acute crisis was critiqued, but it was regarded as very useful for comprehensive information. (4) Further communication channels and addressing other male subgroups or gender identities were presented as possible extensions of the program. CONCLUSIONS: Effective suicide prevention research should address both the groups at risk and their support network. Digital communication interventions can provide low-threshold access. Videos with personalized examples are important to give men someone to identify with, which validates their emotional responses and supports their self-esteem, while videos with experts provide relevant and credible information.
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 | 0,027 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
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 ».