Coping strategies associated with suicidal behaviour in adolescent inpatients with borderline personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the coping strategies of adolescents with borderline personality disorder (BPD) to the coping strategies of adolescents without BPD, and to explore the association of coping with suicidal ideation and attempts among adolescents with BPD. METHOD: Adolescent inpatients (n = 167) aged 13 to 17 years were admitted after suicide attempts and evaluated within 10 days, using the abbreviated version of the Diagnostic Interview for Borderlines-Revised, the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia for School-Age Children-Present and Lifetime Version supported by a team consensus best estimate method for the primary diagnosis, the Adolescent Coping Scale, and the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale. RESULTS: Firstly, compared with adolescents without BPD, adolescents with BPD relied more on nonproductive coping strategies, mostly avoidant strategies, and less on productive coping strategies. Secondly, coping appeared as a factor associated with suicidal ideation in adolescents with BPD. While while controlling for age, sex, and depression, multivariate analyses showed a significant positive association between the coping strategy to focusing on solving the problem and suicidal ideation. CONCLUSION: The use of avoidant strategies by adolescents with BPD could be viewed as attempts to increase emotional regulation. Problem-solving strategies in the immediate aftermath of a suicide attempt may prevent adolescents with BPD from overcoming a crisis and may increase suicidal ideation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".