Hot Idea or Hot Air: A Systematic Review of Evidence for Two Widely Marketed Youth Suicide Prevention Programs and Recommendations for Implementation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Youth suicide is highly related to mental disorders. While communities and schools are marketed to with a plethora of suicide prevention programs, they often lack the capacity to choose evidence-based programs. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of two youth suicide prevention programs to help determine if the quality of evidence available justifies their wide spread dissemination. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration SPECTR database, SocIndex, Sociological Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, ERIC, Social Work Abstracts, Research Library, and Web of Science, for relevant studies. We included studies/systematic reviews/meta-analysis that evaluated the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and/or safety of Signs of Suicide (SOS) and Yellow Ribbon (YR) suicide prevention programs that target adolescents. We applied the Office of Justice Program What Works Repository (OJP-R) to evaluate the quality of the included studies as effective, effective with reservation, promising, inconclusive evidence, insufficient evidence, and ineffective. Two SOS studies were ranked as "inconclusive evidence" based on the OJP-R. One SOS study was ranked as having "insufficient evidence" on OJP-R. The YR study was ranked as "ineffective" using OJP-R. We only included studies in peer-reviewed journals in English and therefore may have missed reports in grey literature or non-English publications. RESULTS: We cannot recommend that schools and communities implement either the SOS or YR suicide prevention programs. Purchasers of these programs should be aware that there is no evidence that their use prevents suicide. CONCLUSIONS: Academics and organizations should not overstate the positive impacts of suicide prevention interventions when the evidence is lacking.
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 | 0.041 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".