MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prevalence of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among young adults between 2000 and 2021: Results from six national representative surveys in France

2024· article· en· W4391672435 on OpenAlexaff
Mathilde M. Husky, Christophe Léon, Enguerrand du Roscoät, Helen‐Maria Vasiliadis

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital Charles-Le MoyneUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicidal ideationPsychologySuicide preventionYoung adultDemographyClinical psychologyMedicinePoison controlPsychiatryEnvironmental healthDevelopmental psychologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study examines the prevalence of 12-month suicidal thoughts and lifetime suicide behaviors among young adults between 2000 and 2021. Data were drawn from the Health Barometer survey, a cross-sectional survey on a French national representative sample. The 2000, 2005, 2010, 2014, 2017, and 2021 survey waves were pooled to examine time trends in 12-month suicidal thoughts and lifetime suicidal behaviors among respondents aged 18 to 25 (n = 13,326), categorized based on sex and on their occupational status: students, those employed, and those who are neither in employment, education or training (NEETs). The 12-month prevalence of suicidal ideation among young adults in 2021 (6.8 %) is no different from that of 2000 (7.0 %), despite a U-shape curve in between. In contrast, the overall prevalence of lifetime suicide attempts was significantly higher in 2021 as compared to what was observed on average in the previous 21 years. In multivariate models, females and NEETs were overall at greatest risk for suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviors. Additional attention and prevention efforts are needed to reach young adults who are neither in employment, education or training.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry ResearchSame topicSuicide and Self-Harm StudiesFrench-language works237,207