Supportive effect of body contact care with ylang ylang aromatherapy and mobile intervention team for suicide prevention: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess understudied, alternative suicide prevention modalities in a mental health care setting. METHODS: This was a prospective study of patients (n = 140, 68 cases and 72 controls) who were admitted to hospital or who contacted an SOS suicide crisis line for suicidal ideation or attempts. Psychiatric diagnoses (Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview) and intensity of anxiety/depression/suicidality (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale, Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale, and Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation) were assessed. All intervention group subjects received a crisis card with a crisis line number, interviews with psychologists or volunteers and a telephone call on days 10 to 21, then 6 months later. These subjects also had a choice between two further 4-month interventions: body contact care or mobile intervention team visits. RESULTS: The interventions significantly reduced the number of suicide attempts and suicide (3%) at 6 months compared with the control condition (12%). There were fewer losses to follow-up in the intervention group (7.35%) than in the control group (9.72%). CONCLUSIONS: The results favour the implementation of integrated care and maintaining contact in suicide prevention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".