A systematic review of the literature on counselling and psychotherapy for the prevention of suicide: 2. Qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scope of review: The paper reports a meta‐synthesis of 13 qualitative studies of counselling and psychotherapy with people at risk of suicide. Publication time span: The studies considered were reported between 1997 and 2006. Publication origin: Seven studies were conducted in the UK, four in the USA, one in Canada, and one in Sweden. Findings: Themes in clients' and therapists' accounts of the process of counselling or psychotherapy were therapist qualities; therapy components; theoretical framework; and therapy techniques. Themes in their accounts of the effectiveness of counselling and psychotherapy were decrease in self‐destructive behaviour, and quality of life. Themes in clients' views of barriers to effective counselling or psychotherapy were therapist characteristics; therapy components; secrecy; and transferring to the real‐life situation. Secrecy was also identified as a barrier by therapists, as were responsibilities of the profession; training; and the nature of suicide and self‐harm. Facilitators of successful counselling and psychotherapy as identified by clients were responsibility; support; and teaching therapy skills to family members, the latter also being identified by therapists.
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 | 0.025 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".