MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4385457285 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.704

Emergency Care Follow-Up for Children and Adolescents With Suicide Attempts or Ideation

2023· article· en· W4385457285 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Candyce Hamel, Sinwan Basharat, Melissa Severn

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmergency departmentPsychological interventionMedicineSuicide attemptSuicidal ideationSuicide preventionHarmFamily medicinePsychiatryMedical emergencyPoison controlPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Death by suicide is the second-leading cause of death for young people in Canada. Because 10% to 15% of the people seen in hospital emergency departments for a suicide attempt will repeat the attempt within 12 months following their discharge, it is important to identify what interventions are effective for preventing further self-harm during this time. Active follow-up care following an emergency department visit for a suicide attempt is common; however, it is unclear what type (e.g., text message, home visit) or timing (e.g., 24 hours, within 72 hours after emergency department discharge) of interventions is most effective for preventing further self-harm in people younger than 18 years. The objective of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of active contact and follow-up interventions, and the timing and duration of care, for children and adolescents (younger than 18 years) who present to emergency care for suicide attempts or suicide ideations. For children and adolescents presenting to the emergency department for suicide attempts or ideation, telephone-based follow-up care initiated within 1 week of discharge may not affect the number of people who completed the full course of postdischarge treatment, the mean number of sessions attended, or the number of suicide deaths. This finding was based on evidence from 2 systematic reviews, each with 1 primary study relevant to this report. The small sample sizes of these studies (N = 64 and N = 97) and their limited or unclear quality should be considered when interpreting these results. None of the relevant primary studies within the systematic reviews reported on mental health outcomes (e.g., depression, social functioning) or harms from the intervention. No studies were found that evaluated the clinical effectiveness of other methods of active follow-up care or of different time durations of follow-up care for children and adolescents who present to emergency care for suicide attempts or suicide ideations that met our criteria for this review. No evidence-based guidelines were identified that provided recommendations about timing, modality, and which health care professionals should be involved in follow-up care for children and adolescents who present to emergency care for suicide attempts or ideations that met our criteria for this review. Guidance documents and guidelines for adults generally recommend that follow-up should occur within 48 hours, particularly for those with safety concerns of subsequent self-harm. These guidance documents also suggest different modalities for follow-up during that time, including telephone calls, visits, and electronic communication. Given the higher risk and potential vulnerability experienced by children and adolescents and the absence of formal clinical guidelines, person-centred follow-up care for all children and adolescents within 48 hours may be considered, similar to adults who present with high concerns.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→