Qualitative research on suicide in East Asia: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide is a serious problem in East Asia. Yet, there is a significant lack of research on the topic, particularly using qualitative methodology. OBJECTIVES: This scoping review reports on findings drawn from 11 qualitative studies, providing up-to-date knowledge and understandings about suicide in East Asian populations. METHODS: A web-based literature search was performed to identify empirical qualitative research articles addressing suicide in East Asia, published from January 2002 to December 2011. RESULTS: Three themes were identified within the reviewed studies; (1) influence of cultural beliefs; (2) the role of caregivers; and (3) specific sociological contexts. These themes are interrelated rather than mutually exclusive. CONCLUSION: The findings drawn from this scoping review reveal specific as well as broad contexts where suicidal ideation and behaviours occur among East Asians. To advance understandings, future studies should focus on comparative and longitudinal research to distil prevailing trends as well as the specificities that reside among particular East Asian subgroups (i.e. gender, sexual identity and generational) as a means to developing culturally sensitive and targeted suicide prevention programs.
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 | 0.043 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".