A Latent Class Analysis of Health Lifestyles in Relation to Suicidality among Adolescents in Mauritius
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicidality, which includes suicidal thoughts, planning, and suicide attempts, results mainly from a combination of psychological, sociological, and environmental factors. Despite a high prevalence of suicidality among adolescents in Africa, only a few studies have considered these factors simultaneously. The objective of the study was to identify the prevalence of suicidality, to draw up profiles of concomitant risks, and to examine the associations between these profiles and suicidality in Mauritius. This study used data from the 2017 Mauritian Global School-based Student Health Survey including 3012 adolescents with a mean age of 14.9 ± 1.4 years. Factors related to lifestyle such as consumptions of alcohol and tobacco, physical activity, violence, parental support, anxiety, and loneliness were considered. A latent class analysis was performed to identify the profiles. Finally, a modified Poisson regression analysis with generalized estimating equations, adjusted with sociodemographic characteristics, was used to assess the association between these profiles and suicidality. Overall, more than one in ten adolescents had at least one of the suicidality behaviors. Three profiles were identified: 1 = "low risk group" (63.9%); 2 = "problems with violence" (15.2%); 3 = "problems with violence, alcohol, tobacco and psychological distress" (20.9%). Profiles 2 and 3 were mainly made up of males. Adolescents under 15 represented the majority of individuals in profile 2. Finally, the risk of suicidality was higher in adolescents belonging to profiles 2 and 3 compared to profile 1 for the three suicidality behaviors (profile 3: Prevalence ratio (PR) for suicidal thoughts = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.19-1.34; PR for planning = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.17-1.30; PR for attempt = 1.23, 95% CI = 1.17-1.29). This study highlights the high prevalence of suicidality and a list of concomitant risks, emphasizing this suicidality in Mauritian adolescents. Therefore, these results recommend focusing preventive efforts toward a simultaneous consideration of these factors.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".