MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197253150 · doi:10.1080/13811118.2021.1965058

Implementing a Suicide Audit in Montreal: Taking Suicide Review Further to Make Concrete Recommendations for Suicide Prevention

2021· article· en· W3197253150 on OpenAlex
Alain Lesage, Gabrielle Fortin, Fabienne Ligier, Ian van Haaster, Claude Doyon, Charlie Brouillard, Diane Daneau, Jessica Rassy

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Suicide Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de SherbrookeInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide preventionOccupational safety and healthPoison controlAuditHuman factors and ergonomicsInjury preventionMedical emergencyMedicinePsychologyPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A suicide audit was pilot implemented in order to generate recommendations on how to improve suicide prevention. METHODS: Thirty-nine consecutive suicides that occurred in Montreal, Canada from January to October 2016 were audited. A retrospective analysis of their life trajectory and service utilization was conducted using the psychological autopsy method, which included interviewing suicide-bereaved survivors and examining health and social services records and the coroner's investigation file. A psychosocial and service utilization profile was drawn for each decedent. A multidisciplinary panel reviewed each case summary to identify gaps in terms of individual intervention, provincial public health and social services, and regional programs. RESULTS: Five main suicide prevention recommendations were made to prevent similar suicides: (1) deploy mobile crisis intervention teams (short-term, high-intensity, home-based treatment) in hospital emergency departments; (2) train primary and specialized mental health care professionals to screen for and manage substance use disorders; and (3) implement public awareness campaigns to encourage help seeking for depression and substance use disorders; (4) access for all, regardless of age, to an effective psychosis treatment program; and (5) provide universal access to a general practitioner, especially for men. CONCLUSIONS: The suicide audit procedure was implemented effectively and targeted recommendations were generated to prevent similar suicides. However, resistance from medical and hospital quality boards arose during the process, though these could be allayed if regional and provincial authorities actively endorsed the multidisciplinary and multi stakeholders suicide audit process. HighlightsA bottom-up approach to generate recommendations for suicide prevention.Implementation was challenging with resistance to our interdisciplinary approach.The audit needs the support of the regional health department to lift barriers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.190
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.293 · 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