Building Resilience and Attachment in Vulnerable Adolescents (BRAVA): a brief group intervention for adolescents with mild‐to‐moderate suicidal ideation and their caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Suicidal Ideation (SI) is common in adolescents and increases the risk of completed suicide. Few brief interventions have been shown to reduce SI in adolescents. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a novel brief group intervention, building resilience and attachment in vulnerable adolescents (BRAVA), designed for adolescents and their caregivers to reduce adolescent SI. METHODS: The study was a pre-post, noncontrolled trial in which 46 adolescents were enrolled in the BRAVA intervention. Adolescents and caregivers completed an intake assessment, six BRAVA group sessions, and an exit assessment 1-week post-BRAVA. RESULTS: Adolescents' SI decreased significantly after completing the BRAVA treatment (pre-post difference = 18.1, 95% CI = 10.01-26.12). Significant improvements in associated symptoms of depression, anxiety, and perceived stress were also observed. Caregivers had reduced perceived stress (pre-post difference = 2.7, 95% CI = 0.30-5.16) and reduction in attachment avoidance (difference = 1.6, 95% CI = 0.29-2.91). Treatment satisfaction was high across the six modules. The rolling entry feature of the intervention allowed participants to begin treatment approximately 2 weeks sooner compared to waiting for the next group cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Study results demonstrate that the BRAVA intervention has the potential to reduce SI among adolescents who present to hospital services in crisis. Further studies are required to establish BRAVA's efficacy in a randomized controlled trial.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".