MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3102958515 · doi:10.1186/s13063-020-04424-w

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

2020· article· en· W3102958515 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon Hatcher, Marnin J. Heisel, Oyedeji Ayonrinde, Julie K. Campbell, Ian Colman, Daniel J. Corsi, Nicole E. Edgar, Lindsay Gillett, Sidney H. Kennedy, Sophia Lakatoo Hunt, Paul S. Links, Sarah MacLean, Viraj Mehta, Christopher J. Mushquash, Alicia Raimundo, Sakina J. Rizvi, Refik Saskin, Ayal Schaffer, Alaaddin Sidahmed, Mark Sinyor, Cláudio N. Soares, Monica Taljaard, Valerie Testa, Kednapa Thavorn, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Christian Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityWilliam Osler Health SystemWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of OttawaKingston Health Sciences CentreCanadian Association for Suicide PreventionLawson Health Research InstituteSt. Michael's HospitalMcMaster UniversitySunnybrook HospitalQueen's UniversityCarleton UniversityOttawa Hospital
FundersOttawa Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioOntario SPOR SUPPORT Unit
KeywordsMedicineSuicidal ideationQuality of life (healthcare)PsychiatryClinical psychologyPoison controlAnxietySuicide preventionMedical emergencyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0540.010

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.263 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207