Media Coverage of Youth Suicides and Its Impact on Paediatric Mental Health Emergency Department Presentations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: To examine mental health (MH) presentations to the emergency department (ED) of a paediatric hospital following two highly publicized local teen suicides.Methods: Youths aged 12-18 years with a MH chief complaint and/or diagnosis were included.Differences in frequencies were analyzed using chi-square tests, and relative risks were evaluated using generalized linear modelling.Results: Significant increases in the number of ED presentations were found within the months of the publicized suicides compared to the same months of previous years.No differences were found in symptom acuity, suicidal status and psychiatric hospitalization rates.Significant increases were found in relative risk of presenting to the ED 28 and 90 days post both publicized suicides.Conclusions: Results suggest there was an association between highly publicized suicides and an increase in the number of MH presentations to the local paediatric ED.Considerations of media' s potentially positive role in MH awareness are needed. Media Coverage of Youth Suicides and Its Impact on Paediatric Mental Health Emergency Department Presentationshockey teammates and family members were interviewed and her memorial received extensive media coverage.In January 2011, attention to youth mental health (MH) and suicide was further augmented as school friends launched the Do It for Daron challenge, which became the DIFD Foundation.Today, the DIFD Foundation has spread beyond the Ottawa region, and many organizations (including the NHL) continue to promote the awareness of youth MH and suicide.On October 14, 2011, Jamie Hubley, the son of Ottawa city councillor Allan Hubley, committed suicide.His death also received extensive media coverage and his parents openly discussed his suicide with the media.Unlike Daron, who did not have a history of mental illness and whose suicide did not seem to have any prior signs, Jamie was diagnosed and being treated for depression.In his blog, Jamie acknowledged his distress as a result of repeated peer bullying for being gay and that he often contemplated suicide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".