Perceived helpfulness of medication and psychotherapy among adults with suicidal ideation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the study is to examine perceived helpfulness of medication and psychotherapy among adults with suicidal ideation. Data were drawn from the 2017 Health Barometer, a nationally representative French survey (n = 25,319). Overall, 4.7% (n = 1,148) reported suicidal ideation in the prior 12 months. Logistic regressions were used to examine factors associated with perceived helpfulness among individuals reporting suicidal ideation in the past year who had received medication (n = 590) or psychotherapy (n = 247). Overall, 80.4% (n = 489) reported that medication was/is helpful, and 56.5% (n = 149) reported psychotherapy helped them a lot. In adjusted models, those with major depression were more likely than those without (AOR = 2.18, 95%CI = 1.39–3.421) to perceive medication as helpful. Those with a recent suicide attempt were less likely to report medication as helpful (AOR = 0.42, 95%CI = 0.21–0.84). Receiving psychotherapy was significantly associated with perceived helpfulness of medication (AOR = 1.89, 95%CI = 1.09-3.29). Additional larger studies are needed in France to assess perceived helpfulness by type and adequacy of psychotherapy received.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".