The Attempt Was My Own! Suicide Attempt Survivors Respond to an Australian Community-Based Suicide Exposure Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Those who attempt suicide have often been overlooked in the suicide prevention literature. Where stories of lived experience have been included, it is often from the perspectives of healthcare professionals who treat the physical and/or psychological impacts following an attempt, rather than firsthand accounts. Yet, the most intimate insights of suicide are lost by not including the voices of those with lived experience of suicide attempt. Through an online, community-based, non-representative survey exploring the impact of exposure to suicide, a sub-sample of 88 participants responded who reported their exposure to suicide as being their own attempt. The survey covered demographic information, questions assessing exposure to suicide attempts and death, current global psychological distress via the Kessler Psychological Distress (K10) Scale, and short qualitative responses provided by 46 participants. The qualitative data was thematically analysed resulting in three themes; the way in which individuals experienced being suicidal; who they were able, or not, to disclose these intentions to-before and after their suicide attempt; and, how these people experienced the formal and informal health care supports available to them to assist with their suicidal crisis. This paper presents important findings from a sample of participants who are highly distressed, and have previously attempted to take their own lives. This adds depth to our understanding of lived experience of suicide attempt, issues associated with seeking appropriate support after suicide attempt, and also demonstrates a willingness of participants to share their stories, even in a study that did not explicitly target those with lived experience of suicide attempt. The need for consistent and compassionate mental health care after a suicide attempt is identified as a vital component of living well after a suicide attempt.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".