MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289518358 · doi:10.1177/01939459221115695

Youth Perspectives on Barriers and Opportunities for the Development of a Peer Support Model to Promote Mental Health and Prevent Suicide

2022· article· en· W4289518358 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jackie Libon, Jarlo Alganion, Carla Hilario

Bibliographic record

VenueWestern Journal of Nursing Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersPolicyWise for Children and Families
KeywordsMental healthThematic analysisPeer supportPsychologySocial supportPromotion (chess)Suicide preventionHealth promotionQualitative researchPublic healthPoison controlMedical educationNursingMedicineSociologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suicide prevention is a public health priority. The purpose of this study was to elicit and document the perspectives of youth (ages 15-24) on the development of a peer support model for mental health promotion and suicide prevention for youth in small communities in western Canada. A qualitative descriptive approach informed by a socioecological framework was used to conduct the study. Eleven youth participated in a series of three co-design workshops. Data collection was conducted remotely using Zoom. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. The following three themes are identified: (a) contextual factors for youth; (b) community spaces and social media; and (c) apps and integrated care. These themes elucidated challenges faced by the youth, strategies for reducing barriers for youth who need support, and opportunities for enhancing youth mental health through responsive community-identified services. Overall, youth were supportive of the potential use of peer support to augment services in their communities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.341
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWestern Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207