MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281770685 · doi:10.1037/tra0001289

Subjective distress, self-harm, and suicidal ideation or behavior throughout trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy in transitional age youth.

2022· article· en· W4281770685 on OpenAlexaff
Wilma Peters, Simon Rice, Judith G. Cohen, Noelle B. Smith, Christina G. McDonnell, Ashley Winch, Andel Nicasio, Richard J. Zeifman, Mario Álvarez‐Jiménez, Sarah Bendall

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and Policy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationDistressClinical psychologyPsychologyPsycINFOCognitive behavioral therapyCoping (psychology)PsychiatryPoison controlSuicide preventionCognitionMedicineMEDLINEMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Elevations in distress, self-harm, and suicidal ideation or behavior are of significant concern in clinical practice. We examined these in a pilot trial of Trauma Focused-Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (TF-CBT) for transitional age youth (aged 15-25 years) with histories of interpersonal trauma and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. METHOD: = 19.5 years) from a pilot study of TF-CBT. Frequencies of elevated distress, self-harm, and suicidal ideation or behavior were measured throughout treatment sessions and across the treatment phases of TF-CBT. RESULTS: Across the 279 sessions of TF-CBT (m = 15.5 sessions), there were 16 incidents of elevated distress in seven participants (i.e., six in Phase I and five each in Phases II and III); 15 incidents of self-harming behavior in seven participants (five incidents in each of the three phases) and one incident of both elevated distress and suicide ideation (Phase I). CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that there may be a relationship between the experience of in session distress and self-harming behaviors. The importance of safety planning and coping skills (acquired in Phase 1) is stressed to ensure the effective implementation of TF-CBT. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.290
GPT teacher head0.525
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological Trauma Theory Research Practice and PolicySame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207