MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4298088187 · doi:10.2196/37746

Telehealth-Supported Decision-making Psychiatric Care for Suicidal Ideation: Longitudinal Observational Study

2022· article· en· W4298088187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erin O’Callaghan, Nicole E. Mahrer, Heather G. Belanger, Scott Sullivan, Christine Lee, Carina Gupta, Mirène Winsberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationTelehealthObservational studyPsychiatryPsychologyLongitudinal studyMedicineClinical psychologySuicide preventionPoison controlMedical emergencyHealth careTelemedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States, and suicidal ideation (SI) is a significant precursor and risk factor for suicide. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the impact of a telepsychiatric care platform on changes in SI over time and remission, as well as to investigate the relationship between various demographic and medical factors on SI and SI remission. METHODS: Participants included 8581 US-based adults (8366 in the treatment group and 215 in the control group) seeking treatment for depression, anxiety, or both. The treatment group included patients who had completed at least 12 weeks of treatment and had received a prescription for at least one psychiatric medication during the study period. Providers prescribed psychiatric medications for each patient during their first session and received regular data on participants. They also received decision support at treatment onset via the digital platform, which leveraged an empirically derived proprietary precision-prescribing algorithm to give providers real-time care guidelines. Participants in the control group consisted of individuals who completed the initial enrollment data and completed surveys at baseline and 12 weeks but did not receive care. RESULTS: Greater feelings of hopelessness, anhedonia, and feeling bad about oneself were most significantly correlated (r=0.24-0.37) with SI at baseline. Sleep issues and feeling tired or having low energy, although significant, had lower correlations with SI (r=0.13-0.14). In terms of demographic variables, advancing age and education were associated with less SI at baseline (r=-0.16) and 12 weeks (r=-0.10) but less improvement over time (r=-0.12 and -0.11, respectively). Although not different at baseline, the SI expression was evident in 34.4% (74/215) of the participants in the control group and 12.32% (1031/8366) of the participants in the treatment group at 12 weeks. Although the participants in the treatment group improved over time regardless of various demographic variables, participants in the control group with less education worsened over time, after controlling for age and depression severity. A model incorporating the treatment group, age, sex, and 8-item Patient Health Questionnaire scores was 77% accurate in its classification of complete remission. Those in the treatment group were 4.3 times more likely (odds ratio 4.31, 95% CI 2.88-6.44) to have complete SI remission than those in the control group. Female participants and those with advanced education beyond high school were approximately 1.4 times more likely (odds ratio 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62) to remit than their counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the efficacy of an antidepressant intervention in reducing SI, in this case administered via a telehealth platform and with decision support, as well as the importance of considering covariates, or subpopulations, when considering SI. Further research and refinement, ideally via randomized controlled trials, are needed.

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)0.008
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.197
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→