Family Members’ Perspectives of Health Care System Interactions With Suicidal Patients and Responses to Suicides: Protocol for a Qualitative Research Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide is a major cause of preventable death globally and a leading cause of death by injury in Canada. To support people who experience suicidal thoughts and behaviors and ultimately prevent people from dying by suicide, it is important to understand the individual and familial experiences with the health care system. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore how suicide victims, and their family members, interacted with the health care system. METHODS: We will invite family members of 6 to 8 suicide victims to participate in the study by sharing their perspectives on both their relative's as well as their own interactions with the health care system. Interviews will take place in-person and will be audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: The results of the study are expected to be available in 12 months. We expect the results to shed light on the experiences of suicide victims and their family members with the health care system. CONCLUSIONS: Our study results may inform practice, policy, and further research. They may shape how members of the health care system respond to people who are at risk of suicide and their families. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/13797.
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 | 0.076 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.007 |
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".