MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3085669946 · doi:10.2196/18383

Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors and Their Associations With Transitional Life Events in Men and Women: Findings From an International Web-Based Sample

2020· article· en· W3085669946 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Alyssa Milton, Tracey A Davenport, Frank Iorfino, Anna Flego, Jane Burns, Ian B. Hickie

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Mental Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersYoung and Well Cooperative Research CentreNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilUniversity of SydneyMovember Foundation
KeywordsPsychologySample (material)Clinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Although numerous studies have demonstrated sex differences in the prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB), there is a clear lack of research examining the similarities and differences between men and women in terms of the relationship between STB, transitional life events, and the coping strategies employed after experiencing such events when they are perceived as stressful. Objective This study aims to examine the differences between men’s and women’s experiences of STB, sociodemographic predictors of STB, and how coping responses after experiencing a stressful transitional life event predict STB. Methods A web-based self-report survey was used to assess the health and well-being of a voluntary community-based sample of men and women aged 16 years and older, living in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States, who were recruited using web-based social media promotion and snowballing. Results In total, 10,765 eligible web-based respondents participated. Compared with men, a significantly greater proportion of women reported STB (P<.001) and endorsed experiencing a transitional life event as stressful (P<.001). However, there were no gender differences in reporting that the transitional life event or events was stressful for those who also reported STB. Significant sociodemographic adjusted risk factors of STB included younger age; identifying as a sexual minority; lower subjective social connectedness; lower subjective intimate bonds; experiencing a stressful transitional life event in the past 12 months; living alone (women only); not being in employment, education, or training (women only); suddenly or unexpectedly losing a job (men only); and experiencing a relationship breakdown (men only). Protective factors included starting a new job, retiring, having a language background other than English, and becoming a parent for the first time (men only). The results relating to coping after experiencing a self-reported stressful transitional life event in the past 12 months found that regardless of sex, respondents who reported STB compared with those who did not were less likely to engage in activities that promote social connections, such as talking about their feelings (P<.001). Coping strategies significantly explained 19.0% of the STB variance for men (F16,1027=14.64; P<.001) and 22.0% for women (F16,1977=36.45; P<.001). Conclusions This research highlights multiple risk factors for STB, one of which includes experiencing at least one stressful transitional life event in the past 12 months. When individuals are experiencing such events, support from services and the community alike should consider using sex-specific or targeted strategies, as this research indicates that compared with women, more men do nothing when experiencing stress after a transitional life event and may be waiting until they experience STB to engage with their social networks for support.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Mental HealthSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207