Evaluation of a Community Suicide Prevention Project (Roots of Hope): Protocol for an Implementation Science Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Roots of Hope (RoH) is a multisite Canadian community-based suicide prevention initiative developed by the Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC), which is based on evidence for intervention effectiveness and World Health Organization recommendations. Seven communities developed local activities in the following 5 pillars: specialized supports, training and networks, public awareness, means safety, and evaluation research. OBJECTIVE: We aim to use an implementation research approach to understand the RoH model for reducing suicidal behaviors and their impacts in communities, and the lessons learned for the equitable development and implementation of RoH in different contexts. Moreover, we want to understand how the program is implemented in relation to the context, the causal pathways, and the factors influencing successful implementation. The evaluation includes assessments of short-term and intermediate effects at each site and overall. METHODS: The principal investigator (PI) developed a consensus among local research coordinators on common approaches and indicators through ongoing participation in an online community of practice, and regular virtual and in-person meetings. At the completion of the pilot phase, the PI will summarize evaluation results across sites and conduct pooled analyses. The RoH theory of change and evaluation model shows how evaluation activities from the planning phase through the implementation of activities in each of the pillars can help clarify the viability of the RoH model and identify factors that facilitate and inhibit effective and equitable implementation in different contexts. Beginning with a situational analysis to identify resources in each community and local specificities, we will examine the implementation characteristics of conformity, dosage, coverage, quality, utility, equity, appreciation, facilitators, and impediments. Evaluation of short-term effects will focus on changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviors, help-seeking, service use, stigma, media reports, empowerment, and care experiences. Intermediate effects, long-term effects, and impact will include assessments of the changes in suicides, suicide attempt rates, and suicide risk indicators. A variety of data sources, both quantitative and qualitative, will be used. RESULTS: The quantitative and qualitative data from all sites will be summarized by the PI in March 2023 to draw conclusions to help the MHCC in its improvements to the RoH model, and to inform communities about how to better implement RoH. Since the COVID-19 pandemic occurred at the beginning of program implementation, its impact and influence will be documented. The validity of RoH in contributing to the prevention of suicides and suicidal behaviors will be clarified in a variety of contexts. The final evaluation report will be available in September 2023. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation results, including the identification of factors that facilitate and inhibit the implementation of RoH and the adaptations to challenges, will be useful to the MHCC, current RoH communities, and those considering adopting the RoH model. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/39978.
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 | 0.152 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.021 |
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".