Bullying Victimization (Being Bullied) among Adolescents Referred for Urgent Psychiatric Consultation: Prevalence and Association with Suicidality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of bullying victimization among adolescents referred for urgent psychiatric consultation, to study the association between bullying victimization and suicidality, and to examine the relation between different types of bullying and suicidality. METHOD: A retrospective chart review was conducted for all adolescents referred to a hospital-based urgent consultation clinic. Our study sample consisted of adolescents with a history of bullying victimization. The Research Ethics Board of Queen's University provided approval. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS (IBM SPSS Inc, Armonk, NY). Chi-square tests were used for sex, suicidal ideation, history of physical and sexual abuse, and time and type of bullying, and an independent sample t test was used for age. RESULTS: The prevalence of bullying victimization was 48.5% (182 of 375). There was a significant association between being bullied and suicidal ideation (P = 0.01), and between sex and suicidal ideation (P ≤ 0.001). Victims of cyberbullying reported more suicidal ideation than those who experienced physical or verbal bullying (P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Bullying victimization, especially cyberbullying, is associated with increased risk of suicidal ideation among adolescents referred for psychiatric risk assessment. The detailed history of the type and duration of bullying experienced by the victims should be considered when conducting a psychiatric risk assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".