The Effect of Explicit Suicide Language in Engagement With a Suicide Prevention Search Page Help-Seeking Prompt: Nonrandomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given that signage, messaging, and advertisements (ads) are the gateway to many interventions in suicide prevention, it is important that we understand what type of messaging works best for whom. OBJECTIVE: We investigated whether explicitly mentioning suicide increases engagement using internet ads by investigating engagement with campaigns with different categories of keywords searched, which may reflect different cognitive states. METHODS: We ran a 2-arm study Australia-wide, with or without ads featuring explicit suicide wording. We analyzed whether there were differences in engagement for campaigns with explicit and nonexplicit ads for low-risk (distressed but not explicitly suicidal), high-risk (explicitly suicidal), and help-seeking for suicide keywords. RESULTS: Our analyses revealed that having explicit wording has opposite effects, depending on the search terms used: explicit wording reduced the engagement rate for individuals searching for low-risk keywords but increased engagement for those using high-risk keywords. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that individuals who are aware of their suicidality respond better to campaigns that explicitly use the word "suicide." We found that individuals who search for low-risk keywords also respond to explicit ads, suggesting that some individuals who are experiencing suicidality search for low-risk keywords.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".