MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242475587 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.21009/v1

The BEACON Study: Protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of a service to deliver smartphone-assisted problem-solving therapy compared to usual care in men who present with intentional self-harm to Emergency Departments in Ontario

2020· preprint· en· W4242475587 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon Hatcher, Marnin J. Heisel, Oyedeji Ayonrinde, Julie K. Campbell, Ian Colman, Daniel J. Corsi, Nicole E. Edgar, Lindsay Gillett, Sidney H. Kennedy, Sophia Lakatoo Hunt, Paul S. Links, Sarah MacLean, Viraj Mehta, Christopher J. Mushquash, Alicia Raimundo, Sakina J. Rizvi, Refik Saskin, Ayal Schaffer, Alaaddin Sidahmed, Mark Sinyor, Cláudio N. Soares, Monica Taljaard, Valerie Testa, Kednapa Thavorn, Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy, Christian Vaillancourt

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square (Research Square) · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreLakehead UniversitySt Joseph's Health CareWilliam Osler Health SystemMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreCanadian Association for Suicide PreventionInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of OntarioOttawa Hospital Research Institute
KeywordsProtocol (science)HarmService (business)Cluster (spacecraft)Cluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialComputer sciencePsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyComputer networkAlternative medicineSurgeryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Patients who present to Emergency Departments (ED) after intentional self-harm receive variable levels care in Ontario. Many are not assessed by a mental health professional following discharge from ED and do not receive psychological services available in the community as many of these services are not covered by the provincial health insurance. Patients who present with intentional self-harm to hospital are more likely to die by suicide and premature death by other means compared to the general population. This risk is elevated in men, who represent two-thirds of those who die by suicide in Ontario. One way of potentially addressing this gap is to offer problem-solving therapy (PST) designed specifically for men, facilitated by the use of a patient facing smartphone application and a clinician facing dashboard. This attempts to blend the use of face to face therapy and technology to create an effective intervention after self-harm.Methods This is a pragmatic, multicentre pre- and post-design cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) comparing the provision of a suicide prevention intervention to usual care, in men who present to the ED with self-harm. The study intervention is composed of: 1) staff education; 2) resource materials for men who present to the ED with self-harm; and, 3) the option to refer patients to a blended PST service for the treatment of self-harm. The primary outcome to be assessed is a composite of the incidence of suicides and/or re-presentations to any ED in Ontario for self-harm in the year after presentation with self-harm. Secondary outcome measures include: total number of suicides; re-presentations to any ED in Ontario for the repetition of self-harm; re-presentations to any ED in Ontario for any reason; other health system use including use of primary care and hospital outpatient appointments; mortality not related to suicide; and, health system costs over one year. All outcomes will be measured from provincial health administrative databases available at the Institute for Clinical and Evaluative Sciences (IC/ES).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0060.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0790.010

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.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square (Research Square)Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207