Static metrics of impact for a dynamic problem: The need for smarter tools to guide suicide prevention planning and investment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates two approaches to estimate the potential impact of a population-level intervention on Australian suicide, to highlight the importance of selecting appropriate analytic approaches for informing evidence-based strategies for suicide prevention. METHODS: The potential impact of a psychosocial therapy intervention on the incidence of suicide in Australia over the next 10 years was used as a case study to compare the potential impact on suicides averted using: (1) a traditional epidemiological measure of population attributable risk and (2) a dynamic measure of population impact based on a systems science model of suicide that incorporates changes over time. RESULTS: Based on the population preventive fraction, findings suggest that the psychosocial therapy intervention if implemented among all eligible individuals in the Australian population would prevent 5.4% of suicides (or 1936 suicides) over the next 10 years. In comparison, estimates from the dynamic simulation model which accounts for changes in the effect size of the intervention over time, the time taken for the intervention to have an impact in the population, and likely barriers to the uptake and availability of services suggest that the intervention would avert a lower proportion of suicides (between 0.4% and 0.5%) over the same follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Traditional epidemiological measures used to estimate population health burden have several limitations that are often understated and can lead to unrealistic expectations of the potential impact of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings. This study highlights these limitations and proposes an alternative analytic approach to guide policy and practice decisions to achieve reductions in Australian 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 | 0.034 | 0.190 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".