Addressing hopelessness in people with suicidal ideation: building upon the therapeutic relationship utilizing a cognitive behavioural approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on how the therapeutic relationship can be enhanced by utilizing a cognitive behavioural approach when dealing with hopelessness in suicidal people. A rationale is presented regarding why this topic is deemed important. Following a brief overview of the concept of hope, the theoretical and empirical literature relating to hopelessness are examined. This literature indicates that, given the inextricable link between suicide and a sense of pervasive hopelessness, it is necessary for the practitioner to understand the methods and theoretical underpinnings of hope inspiration. Two case studies, drawn from clinical practice, are described in order to elucidate the key elements/interventions (which include the therapeutic relationship and specific cognitive behavioural techniques that the nurse therapist may utilize when attempting to ameliorate the client's sense of hopelessness). These key elements/interventions are further elaborated upon. Whilst cognitive behavioural techniques are shown to be beneficial when dealing with hopelessness, it is advocated that the therapeutic relationship is a prerequisite for successful therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".