What is important to the decision to disclose nonsuicidal self‐injury in formal and social contexts?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disclosure of nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) is associated with a range of both positive (e.g., help-seeking) and negative (e.g., discrimination) outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess the importance of a range of factors concerned with: NSSI experiences, self-efficacy to disclose self-injury, interpersonal factors, and reasons for or expectations of disclosure, to the decision to disclose self-injury to friends, family members, significant others, and health professionals. METHODS: Three hundred seventy-one participants with lived experience of NSSI completed a survey in which they rated the importance of the aforementioned factors to the decision of whether to disclose NSSI to different people. A mixed-model analysis of variance was conducted to investigate whether the factors differed in importance and if this importance differed across relationship types. RESULTS: All factors held importance, though to differing degrees, with those related to relationship quality being most important overall. Generally, factors relating to tangible aid were considered more important when considering disclosure to health professionals than to other people. Conversely, interpersonal factors, particularly trust, were more important when disclosing to individuals in social or personal relationships. CONCLUSION: The findings provide preliminary insight into how different considerations may be prioritized when navigating NSSI disclosure, in a way that may be tailored to different contexts. For clinicians, the findings highlight that clients may expect tangible forms of support and nonjudgment in the event that they disclose their self-injury in this formal setting.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".