Suicidal Ideation and Suicide Attempts Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Pansexual, Queer, and Asexual Youth: Differential Impacts of Sexual Orientation, Verbal, Physical, or Sexual Harassment or Assault, Conversion Practices, Family or Household Religiosity, and School Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article examines factors associated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the past 12 months among lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, or other non-heterosexual identifying youth (LGBQA+). Methods: A national Australian cross-sectional online survey was conducted involving 4370 cisgender LGBQA+ participants aged 14–21 years from September to October 2019. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine significant factors associated with suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the past 12 months. Research ethics approval for the WTI4 study was granted by the La Trobe University Human Research Ethics Committee and the ACON Research Ethics Review Committee. Results: Overall, 56.4% of participants reported suicidal ideation and 8.9% a suicide attempt in the past 12 months. Multivariable regression results show that participants aged younger than 18 years, lesbian (compared with gay) identifying, those living in rural or remote locations (compared with inner city), those reporting any verbal, physical, or sexual harassment or assault based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or who had a religious family or household, or had experienced conversion practices in the past 12 months reported higher levels of suicidal ideation or suicide attempts. Those who reported feeling part of their school reported lower levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. Conclusion: High levels of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among young LGBQA+ people in Australia highlight a need for the ongoing inclusion of LGBQA+ youth as a priority population for suicide prevention. The findings illustrate key factors associated with a greater risk of suicidality among young LGBQA+ people. These findings can be used to inform the provision of tailored support services, including culturally safe suicide prevention programs and efforts to address stigma, discrimination, and conversion practices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".