Correlates of suicidal ideation related to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Repeated cross-sectional nationally representative Canadian data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: With significant levels of mental distress reported by populations, globally, the magnitude of suicidal ideation during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic is a central concern. The goal of this study was to quantify the extent of pandemic-related suicidal ideation in the Canadian population during the first ten months of the pandemic and identify sociodemographic and pandemic-related stressors associated with increased risk of ideation. METHOD: Data were derived from three rounds of a mental health monitoring survey, nationally representative by age, gender, household income, and region, delivered online in May 2020, September 2020, and January 2021. Bivariate analyses were used to quantify the proportion of respondents in Canada reporting suicidal ideation by sociodemographic factors and pandemic-related stressors. Unadjusted and adjusted multivariable logistic regression was used to study the association between suicidal ideation and correlates within four pandemic-related stressor categories (financial, relationship, substance use, COVID-19 exposure). RESULTS: Of the 7002 respondents, 6.2% (n = 433) reported experiencing suicidal thoughts or feelings as a result of the pandemic within the two weeks prior to taking the survey. In terms of sociodemographic factors, suicidal ideation was more commonly reported among those who were not cisgender, <65 years-old, single, Indigenous, LGBT2Q+, and who experience a pre-existing mental health condition. After adjusting for sociodemographic factors, indicators across all four pandemic-related stressor categories were associated with two or more times the odds of suicidal ideation. CONCLUSION: Disparities in COVID-19 related suicidal ideation have persisted throughout the first year of the pandemic for specific sociodemographic sub-groups and those who have faced stressors related to finances, relationships, increased substance use, and COVID-19 virus exposure. To best address these disparities and to prevent a transition from suicidal ideation to action, appropriate planning, resources, and policies are needed to ensure health and well-being for everyone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".