MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4368617889 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0284431

Implementation strategies and outcomes of school-based programs for adolescent suicide prevention: A scoping review protocol

2023· review· en· W4368617889 on OpenAlexaff
Belén Vargas, Pablo Martínez, Scarlett Mac‐Ginty, Tamara Hoffmann, Vania Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersAgencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo
KeywordsPsychological interventionGrey literatureContext (archaeology)Protocol (science)MedicineIntervention (counseling)Scope (computer science)Poison controlSuicide preventionMedical educationMEDLINEPsychologyComputer scienceNursingAlternative medicineMedical emergencyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify and map the empirical literature on the implementation strategies and outcomes of school-based programs for adolescent suicide prevention (SBASP). INTRODUCTION: School-based programs are preferred interventions for preventing suicide in adolescents, and their effectiveness has been well-systematized in several reviews. Implementation research is a growing field for prevention programs, making it possible to understand the nature of success or failure outcomes and maximize intervention benefits. However, there is a knowledge gap in the implementation research applied to adolescent suicide prevention in the educational context. We conduct a scoping review to provide the first overview of the scope of implementation research applied to adolescent suicide prevention programs in the school setting to know what implementation strategies and outcomes are reported by these programs and how they are evaluated. METHODS: The proposed scoping review will be conducted following six stages, including the definition of objectives. Studies must be empirical and address implementation strategies or implementation outcomes of school-based programs for adolescent suicide prevention. Studies that focused exclusively on clinical efficacy or effectiveness evaluation will be excluded. A preliminary search of PubMed was conducted to refine the initial search strings, followed by a final search of several other electronic databases. Finally, a gray literature search will identify unpublished literature and reduce location bias. There will be no limits to a specific date. Two independent reviewers will screen, select, and extract the retrieved records. The results will be presented using tabular forms and a narrative summary with attention to the review objectives and research questions and their implications for research and practice of school-based programs for adolescent suicide prevention.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.108
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.108
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.015
Bibliometrics0.0250.019
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.010
Open science0.0070.010
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.010

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 head0.390
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.127 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→