Setting a lived experience agenda for rural suicidality research in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The perspectives of rural communities, specifically people with lived experience of suicidality and suicide loss in rural places, are often neglected in suicide research. It is critical that rural and remote health researchers acquire a deeper understanding of suicidality in rural Canadian communities for generation of relevant knowledge to better inform the development of suicide prevention, intervention and postvention solutions. This article presents research findings of how rural residents understand their community values, what information gaps they identify in relation to current suicide research, and how research can be mobilized to reach rural communities. METHOD: Researchers conducted six virtual focus groups with 47 participants from the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador between March and May 2021. All focus groups were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Focus group findings revealed the need for research that recognizes the significance of rural culture, the sense of community experienced and the ways in which they shape rural suicide experiences with associated impacts of suicide. Participatory, community-based action research methods are required to examine the interplay between rural residence, community, and suicide. In addition, the voices of rural people with lived experience of suicide are absent in the research literature. The need exists for qualitative research conducted for the purpose of investigating the lived experience of rural suicidality. CONCLUSION: Research participants asked that a lived experience agenda be prioritized to include the voices and stories of rural people, with consideration of rural culture, an aspect of rural suicidality currently not evident in Canadian research literature.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".