Psychosocial interventions addressing suicidality in inpatient psychiatry: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the existing literature on psychosocial interventions aimed at addressing suicidality among adults in the context of an inpatient psychiatric admission. INTRODUCTION: For individuals admitted to a psychiatric inpatient unit, their risk of suicide in the period following discharge is significantly higher compared with the prevalence of death by suicide in the general population. During an inpatient admission, there is opportunity for supportive interventions that may lead to reduced risks of suicide. Yet, interventions that directly address suicidality have primarily been studied in outpatient settings. A broader understanding of inpatient interventions will assist clinicians in understanding key considerations when implementing suicide-related interventions in this setting. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies involving adult patients (≥18 years) that describe psychosocial interventions aiming to address suicidality in the context of inpatient psychiatry will be considered. Studies that only describe pharmacological interventions will be excluded, as will studies that describe psychosocial interventions initiated in the context of an outpatient setting. METHODS: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, and Web of Science for studies in English and Spanish. Gray literature and materials will also be searched for using Google and websites relevant to the review topic. No date limit will be set. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts from studies that meet the inclusion criteria and review eligible studies at full text. Data will be extracted and synthesized and then presented in tabular and graphical formats accompanied by a narrative summary. DETAILS OF THE REVIEW AVAILABLE AT: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/5cwhx.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.068 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.065 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".