A systematic review of the literature on counselling and psychotherapy for the prevention of suicide: 1. Quantitative outcome and process studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scope of review: The paper reports a meta‐review of 15 previous systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of the literature concerning the outcome of counselling and psychotherapy with people at risk of suicide; a meta‐analysis of 67 outcome studies in this area; and a narrative review of 17 studies of the therapeutic process. Publication time span: The literature reviewed was published between 1981 and 2008. Publication origin: The majority of the literature reviewed was by authors from the USA or the UK, but there were also authors from other European countries, Australia, Canada, India, and Sri Lanka. Findings: There is evidence of the effectiveness of dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive‐behavioural therapy, and problem solving therapy, but also for other forms of therapy. Therapist and client variables, as well as the therapeutic relationship, appear to be related to treatment outcome. Conclusions: People at risk of suicide should have access to psychological interventions, including, but not necessarily limited to, those within the cognitive‐behavioural spectrum. Therapies for which there have been promising findings, but which are under‐researched, should be a research priority.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".