The global prevalence of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the global prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts among men who have sex with men (MSM) as a systematic review, and meta-analysis. METHODS: For this meta-analysis, a search in four international databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE) was designed, and performed. In the next step, the information extraction checklist was prepared based on the study authors' opinions, and the quality of the articles was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) checklist. Data meta-analysis was performed using STATA16 software with a significance level below 0.05. RESULTS: The results showed the prevalence of suicidal ideation, and suicide attempts among MSM was 21% (95% CI 17%-26%), and 12% (95% CI 8%-17%), respectively. The results of the subgroup analysis showed that the prevalence of suicidal ideation in the population of MSM living with Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was 40% (95% CI 35%-45%), and the prevalence of suicide attempts among MSM with HIV was 10% (95% CI 1%-27%). The prevalence of suicidal ideation in European MSM, and the prevalence of suicide attempts among American MSM were higher than other MSM in other geographical areas. CONCLUSION: Considering that the prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts among these people is many times higher than that among men in the general population, developing programs for the prevention of mental disorders with special attention to suicide is necessary for these people. Screening programs are also recommended for early diagnosis and prevention of suicide among these people.
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 | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".