Information and Communication Technology Use in Suicide Prevention: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND The use of information and communication technology (ICT) in suicide prevention has progressed rapidly over the past decade. ICT plays a major role in suicide prevention, but research on best and promising practices has been slow. OBJECTIVE This paper aims to explore the existing literature on ICT use in suicide prevention to answer the following question: what are the best and most promising ICT practices for suicide prevention? METHODS A scoping search was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and IEEE Xplore. These databases were searched for articles published between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2018. The five stages of the scoping review process were as follows: identifying research questions; targeting relevant studies; selecting studies; charting data; and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The World Health Organization suicide prevention model was used according to the continuum of universal, selective, and indicated prevention. RESULTS Of the 3848 studies identified, 115 (2.99%) were selected. Of these, 10 regarded the use of ICT in universal suicide prevention, 53 referred to the use of ICT in selective suicide prevention, and 52 dealt with the use of ICT in indicated suicide prevention. CONCLUSIONS The use of ICT plays a major role in suicide prevention, and many promising programs were identified through this scoping review. However, large-scale evaluation studies are needed to further examine the effectiveness of these programs and strategies. In addition, safety and ethics protocols for ICT-based interventions are recommended.
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 | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".