Association of parenting with suicidal ideation and attempts in children and youth: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death in children and youth, with suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts (referred to as non-fatal suicidal behaviors (NFSB)) being among its strongest predictors. Positive parenting (e.g., warmth, responsiveness), negative parenting (e.g., control, hostility), and parent-child relationship quality (e.g., trust, communication) have been reported to be associated with differences in NFSB in this population. To date, no comprehensive systematic review has considered together the wide range of parenting factors studied in relation to NFSB, and no meta-analysis of existing findings has been conducted. The present study will critically appraise and synthesize the existing evidence from observational studies that examine the relationships between parenting factors and (i) suicidal ideation and (ii) suicide attempt in children and youth. METHODS: Studies will be retrieved from APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases. Retrospective, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies, conducted in clinical and population settings, among youth aged less than 25 years and published as articles and dissertations in English or French will be eligible. Two reviewers will select articles using the Covidence Software after title and abstract screening and full-text assessment, will extract information using double data entry, and will appraise studies' quality using the Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Any disagreements will be discussed with a third reviewer. Publication bias will be evaluated using funnel plots and Egger's test. In addition to a narrative summary of results, meta-analyses will be conducted using results from at least three studies. Three-level random effect models will allow to derive pooled estimates from dependent effect sizes (from the same sample or study). In case of significant heterogeneity, moderation analyses will be performed considering participants' characteristics and methodological aspects of studies. The results will be reported according to the PRISMA guidelines, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach. DISCUSSION: In highlighting parenting factors associated with NFSB and in estimating the overall strength of these associations in children and youth, our results will inform further intervention and prevention strategies designed for young people experiencing NFSB and their families. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020165345.
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 | 0.086 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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".