A systematic review of psychosocial protective factors against suicide and suicidality among older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on suicide rarely focuses on protective factors. The goal of this systematic review was to assess the evidence of the associations between protective factors and reduced suicidality among older adults. METHOD: First, a scoping review was conducted to identify pertinent terms that refer to various protective factors against suicidality. A systematic review, following the PRISMA guidelines, was then conducted on a selection of 15 protective factors (e.g., perceived control, well-being and quality of life, life satisfaction, purpose-in-life, resilience, coping, religiosity, hope, self-regulation, sense of belonging, mattering, positive relationship, social support, social connectedness, and social participation), with separate searches performed on each factor in five databases. Empirical studies were eligible if participants were adults aged 60 years and over, and if the studies reported predictive statistical analysis. RESULTS: A total of 70 studies were retained for the review. Suicidal ideation was the main outcome measure (91%). Significant associations were consistently observed between all protective factors and reduced suicidal ideations or behaviors, particularly for purpose-in-life, resilience, and positive relationships, indicating that these are solid components for suicide prevention. Using scales, instead of a single item, to measure protective factors (e.g. life satisfaction) was more efficient to capture the associations. On the other hand, results were similar whether studies used subjective (e.g., sense of belonging) or objective (e.g., social connectedness) measures. CONCLUSION: Protective factors were inversely associated with suicidal ideation. Improving protective factors is essential for the development of late-life suicide prevention and interventions, instead of merely focusing on risk factors.
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 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".