Teaching Pediatric Residents to Assess Adolescent Suicide Risk With a Standardized Patient Module
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a suicide risk assessment (SRA) training module incorporating standardized patients (SPs) would enhance pediatric resident SRA performance. METHODS: We conducted an educational survey of pediatric residents regarding SRA (N = 80). In addition, we tested the performance of a SRA training module among pediatric interns who received SRA practice with SPs simulating suicidality scenarios, with (n = 6) or without (n = 6) SRA lecture, or SRA lecture only (n = 12) and control interns (n = 10). We examined postintervention confidence in SRA and self-reported and objectively measured knowledge of suicidal risk factors. RESULTS: Resident confidence and knowledge regarding SRA were low, compared with assessment of medical illness. Interns in the SP plus lecture group had significantly greater confidence in screening adolescents for suicide risk factors and assessing suicidal adolescents (screening, 4.2 +/- 0.4; assessing, 4.2 +/- 0.4), compared with subjects in either the lecture-only (screening, 2.9 +/- 0.8; P = .005; assessing, 2.9 +/- 1.1; P = .01) or control (screening, 3.1 +/- 0.7; P = .025; assessing, 2.6 +/- 0.8; P = .003) group. In addition, only the SP plus lecture group demonstrated significantly greater objective knowledge of suicide risk factors (92% vs 25% correct; P = .008) than the control group. Neither the lecture-only group nor the SP-only group was significantly better than the control group in terms of knowledge or confidence relevant to SRA. CONCLUSION: This SRA training module was significantly more effective than lecture alone in enhancing pediatric intern knowledge and confidence in SRA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".