The Effects of Suicide Ideation Assessments on Urges to Self-Harm and Suicide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Participants' safety is the primary concern when conducting research with suicidal or potentially suicidal participants. The presence of suicide risk is often an exclusion criterion for research participants. Subsequently, few studies have examined the effects of research assessments on study participants' suicidality. AIMS: The purpose of this research was to examine the patterns of postassessment changes in self-harm and suicide urges of study participants who were recently discharged from an inpatient psychiatric service. METHOD: Study participants (N = 120) were recruited from patients with a lifetime history of suicidal behavior admitted with current suicidal ideation or suicide attempt to an inpatient psychiatric service and/or a crisis stabilization unit. Participants were assessed for suicidal ideation with the Suicide Ideation Scale at 1, 3, and 6 months following their discharge from hospital. The risk assessment protocol was administered at the start and at the end of each of the study follow-up assessments. RESULTS: Changes in self-harm and suicide urges following study assessments were small, infrequent, and were most likely to reflect a decrease in suicidality. Similarly, participants rarely reported worsening self-control over suicidal urges, and when they did, the effect was minimal. By the end of the 6-month follow-up period, increases in self-harm and suicidal urges postassessment were not seen. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of suicidal participants in research interviews rarely increased suicide risk. Research involving suicidal individuals is possible when study protocols are well planned and executed by trained assessors and clinicians who are able to identify participants at risk and provide intervention if necessary. The few participants that required intervention had high levels of suicide ideation and behavior at baseline and almost all reported symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Further study is needed to better characterize this subgroup of participants.
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 | 0.017 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".