The BEACON study: protocol for a cohort study as part of an evaluation of the effectiveness of smartphone-assisted problem-solving therapy in men who present with intentional self-harm to emergency departments in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients who present to emergency departments after intentional self-harm are at an increased risk of dying by suicide. This applies particularly to men, who represent nearly two-thirds of those who die by suicide in Ontario. One way of potentially addressing this gap is to offer a course of blended problem-solving therapy, comprised of a brief course of evidence-based psychotherapy for individuals at risk for suicide, facilitated by the use of a patient-facing smartphone application and a clinician-facing "dashboard." This approach has the potential to combine the benefits of face-to-face therapy and technology to create a novel intervention. METHODS: This is a cohort study nested within a larger pragmatic multicentre pre- and post-design cluster randomised trial. Suicidal ideation assessed by the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation is the primary outcome variable. Secondary outcome measures include depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale), post-traumatic stress disorder (Primary Care PTSD Screen), health-related quality of life (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire), meaning in life (Experienced Meaning in Life Scale), perceived social supports (Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support), alcohol use (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test), drug use (Drug Abuse Screening Test Short Form 10), problem-solving skills (Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised Short Form), and self-reported healthcare costs, as well as health service use measured using Ontario administrative health data. A process evaluation will also be conducted following study completion. DISCUSSION: The cohort study will test whether better adherence to the intervention results in better outcomes. The value of the cohort study design is that we can examine in more detail certain subgroups or other variables that are not available in the larger cluster randomised trial. This trial will aim to improve standards by informing best practice in management of men who self-harm and present to hospitals in Ontario. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03473535 . Registered on March 22, 2018.
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 | 0.014 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".