Positive effects of parent–child group emotional regulation and resilience training on nonsuicidal self-injury behavior in adolescents: a quasi-experimental study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) among adolescents is a growing global concern. However, effective interventions for treating NSSI are limited. Method A 36-week quasi-experimental study design of parent–child group resilience training (intervention group) for adolescents aged 12–17 years was used and compared with treatment-as-usual (control group). The primary endpoint was the frequency of NSSI assessed with the Ottawa Self-Injury Inventory (OSI), and the secondary endpoints were the levels of depression, hope, resilience, and family adaptability and cohesion as assessed by the 24-item Hamilton depression rating scale (HAMD-24), Herth Hope Scale (HHS), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), and Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scale, second edition (FACES-II-CV), respectively. Result A total of 118 participants completed the trial. Both groups showed a significant reduction in NSSI frequency after 12, 24, and 36 weeks of intervention (p< 0.05), although the intervention group did not differ significantly from the control group. After 12, 24, and 36 weeks of intervention, the CD-RISC, HHS, HAMD-24, and FACES-II-CV scores in the intervention and control groups improved over baseline (p< 0.05). Furthermore, the intervention group had higher scores on the CD-RISC, HHS, and FACES-II-CV and lower scores on the HAMD-24 than the control group after 12, 24, and 36 weeks of intervention (p < 0.05). Conclusion Parent–child group emotional regulation and resilience training showed promise as treatment options for NSSI among adolescents, leading to increased hope, resilience, and improved family dynamics among NSSI teens. Moreover, NSSI frequency significantly decreased in the intervention group compared to baseline.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".