SafeTALK suicide training: An evaluation of attitudes and actions among medical students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: SafeTALK is a half-day gatekeeper training program on recognizing persons at risk for suicide and intervening appropriately. Primary care clinicians have been increasingly targeted for suicide intervention training; however, evidence surrounding the effectiveness of safeTALK is lacking, particularly among medical learners. The aim of this study was to assess whether suicide literacy and intervention skills were enhanced by safeTALK training among medical learners.Methods: Undergraduate medical students from an Ontario university were invited to complete an online survey regardless if they had taken safeTALK training as part of their curriculum. Suicide literacy was measured with the Literacy of Suicide Scale (LOSS) and intervention skills were measured with the Suicide Intervention Response Inventory (SIRI).Results: The majority believed that suicide risk assessment training was very important to undergraduate medical education. Although limitations were noted, this study did not demonstrate that safeTALK training significantly improved medical students’ suicide literacy levels or suicide intervention skills.Conclusions: A more comprehensive program including the epidemiology of suicide and mental health disorders in addition to intervention skills is recommended to ensure medical learners are equipped to dispel the stigmas surrounding suicide and offer the appropriate care and follow up to their patients in future practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".