Building Resilience and Attachment in Vulnerable Adolescents: The Feasibility of a Virtually Delivered Group Intervention for Adolescents with Suicidal Ideation and Their Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic required many interventions to be conducted virtually. Building Resilience and Attachment in Vulnerable Adolescents (BRAVA) is a group intervention designed for adolescents and their caregivers to reduce adolescent suicidal ideation (SI). Objective: We aimed to adapt BRAVA for virtual delivery and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility. Methods: We conducted an 8-week pre–post trial between October and December 2020. Six adolescents and six primary caregivers were recruited from a pediatric hospital in Ontario, Canada. Families completed a virtual intake and exit assessment together and 6 weekly BRAVA group sessions separately. Satisfaction feedback was collected after each group session and during their exit, and clinical outcomes were collected at intake and exit. Weekly team meetings were conducted to gather clinician feedback. Results: The study uptake rate was 42.9% of eligible participants. There were no dropouts. Adolescent and caregiver attendance rates for group sessions were high (median = 6). Most youth (83.4%) and caregivers (66.7%) reported that the virtual process worked well. All caregivers (100%) agreed they would participate in a virtual group session again, compared with youth (50%). Providers approved of the virtual adaptation but identified potential improvements (e.g., manual content, safety procedures). Adolescent SI decreased significantly post-treatment (Mpre = 50.7, Mpost = 29.7, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Virtual delivery of BRAVA is acceptable and feasible and may help reduce SI in adolescents. Uptake, retention, and satisfaction were high for adolescents and caregivers. Feedback collected will improve BRAVA for future evaluations, including a randomized controlled trial.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".