“Hey Amir, How Are You REALLY Doing?”: Participant Perspectives of a Peer-Based Suicide Prevention Campaign for Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Suicide is a major public health concern and leading cause of death among men in Canada. This study reports the feasibility and acceptability of Buddy Up, a peer-based suicide prevention campaign for men. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyze respondent survey questionnaires ( n = 48) and individual participant interviews ( n = 19) collected from campaign users. Survey respondents reported that they enjoyed their involvement in the campaign (92%), were more confident to talk with men about mental health and suicide (95%), and would recommend Buddy Up to others (95%). Qualitative interviews were thematically analyzed to develop three inductively derived themes: (a) Engaging men with relatable masculine content and design: “Buddy Up really spoke to them in their language,” highlighting the importance of understanding and working with gendered practices and motivations to legitimize and motivate involvement in suicide prevention; (b) Leveraging campaign participation to initiate conversations and promote mental health: “It gives men language and license to start asking questions,” revealing ways in which participants utilized Buddy Up to negotiate and norm checking-in to promote men’s mental health; and (c) Driving new masculine cultures: “We start every meeting with a mental health moment,” identifying how participants fostered healthy milieus for disclosing mental health challenges with teamwork and preventive action under the banner of Buddy Up. The study findings support the feasibility of Buddy Up and highlight the acceptability of peer-based approaches to mental health promotion. The findings can also empirically guide future efforts for systematically building men’s peer-based suicide prevention programs.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".