Opinions on Youth Suicide Risk Screening from Individuals with Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Their Therapists: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) are at increased risk for suicide, yet little work has been done to address the specific needs for this population. Specifically, there are no validated suicide risk screening instruments and processes for individuals with NDD; this study aimed to assess the opinions of individuals with NDD and their therapists on suicide risk screening in order to inform best practices for screening. Method: A pilot study was launched to qualitatively evaluate processes and instruments that may be used in future studies on suicide screening risk in NDDs. Participants and their therapists were surveyed after filling out suicide risk screening instruments and provided qualitative feedback on their opinions of screening for suicide risk. Results: Most participants (9/15) reported positive experiences of being screened for suicide risk. Additionally, almost all therapists (14/15) were in support of suicide risk screening. Several themes, such as interpersonal benefits, emerged as reasons for supporting screening. Conclusions: The findings from this pilot study provide initial qualitative evidence that many individuals with NDD and their therapists would be comfortable with and are in support of suicide risk screening for this population. Screening tools to guide clinicians on how to ask about suicide risk are needed and appear to be desired by clinicians on the frontlines of mental health treatment for people with NDD.
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 | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".