Perceptions of Occupational Medicine Specialists on Suicide Prevention in the Workplace
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide rates have taken on alarming dimensions with catastrophic consequences. This study aims to understand the perceptions of occupational medicine specialists about suicide prevention and describe what actions work organizations are taking to prevent suicide among their workers. This is an exploratory, cross-sectional, descriptive, quantitative study, carried out with 24 occupational medicine specialists with experience in workers’ mental health, using online forms. The analyses were performed using Excel and SPSS software. In the results, the indicators that most appeared among specialists as prevalent in the development of controls for suicide risk were: (1) to control the reasons for social security leaves (n = 23, 95.8%); (2) to train leaders for people management (n = 23, 95.8%); and (3) to have an official means of communication within the company to report violence at work (n = 20, 83.3%). There were 42 recommendations described by the specialists. They were grouped into 8 categories and are part of 4 different dimensions of suicide prevention. Suicide is a complex phenomenon of multifactorial nature, which involves all the dimensions of life and influences the people close to it directly and indirectly. Therefore, there is no single way to approach this issue in work organizations, nor a single way to promote prevention, given the fact that the practical experiences of the physicians expand the approach of health services.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it