Effectiveness of emergency department-based and initiated youth suicide prevention interventions: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined the effectiveness of Emergency Department-based and initiated youth suicide prevention interventions for suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, hospitalization, family system functioning, and other mental health symptoms. METHODS: We searched five databases for randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies that examined Emergency Department-based and initiated suicide prevention interventions among youth aged 10 to 18 years old between May 2020 to June 2022. Using Cohen's d and 95% confidence interval as our standardised metrics, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis in Systematic Reviews (SWiM) guidelines when synthesizing, interpreting, and reporting the findings of this review. RESULTS: Five studies were included in this review. Findings were first synthesized according to the targeted population of the study intervention and this review's outcomes. Two interventions were effective for decreasing depressive symptoms, hospitalization recidivism, and/or increasing family empowerment. There were no interventions that reduced subsequent suicide attempts. A meta-analysis was not conducted due to the heterogeneity of the data. CONCLUSION: A need exists to develop and evaluate Emergency Department-based and initiated youth suicide prevention interventions that can be successfully and sustainably implemented in practice. Future research should focus on evaluating the components of interventions that effectively mitigate suicide risk among high-risk youth.
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 | 0.010 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".