Study protocol for the Multimodal Approach to Preventing Suicide in Schools (MAPSS) project: A regionally based feasibility trial of an integrated response to suicide risk among UK secondary school pupils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Suicide is the leading cause of death of children and young people under 35 in the UK, and suicide rates are rising in this age group. Schools are considered an appropriate and logical setting for youth suicide prevention activities, with universal, selective, and indicated approaches all demonstrating efficacy. Given that international best practice recommends suicide prevention programmes combine these approaches, and that to date this has not been done in school settings in the UK, this study aims to evaluate the feasibility of delivering a suicide prevention programme incorporating universal, selective, and indicated components in UK schools. Methods This study is a feasibility cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an adapted version of the Multimodal Approach to Preventing Suicide in Schools (MAPSS) programme. The programme, initially developed in Australia, involves delivering universal psychoeducation to all pupils, screening them for suicide risk, and delivering Internet-based Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (Reframe IT-UK) to those students identified as being at high-risk for suicide. The programme will be trialled in six secondary schools in Northwest England and will target Year 10 students (14- and 15-year-olds). The primary aims are to assess: 1) the acceptability and safety of delivering MAPSS in a school setting in the UK; 2) the social validity of the MAPSS programme; and 3) the feasibility of delivering a large-scale, appropriately powered, cluster-RCT and economic evaluation of this intervention in the future. Secondary aims are to assess changes over time in mental health and wellbeing outcomes. Discussion This study is the first to evaluate a suicide prevention programme comprising universal, selective, and indicated components in UK schools. If the programme is found to be feasible, it could be more widely tested in schools and may ultimately lead to reduced rates of suicide and suicidal behaviour in young people.
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 | 0.053 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.016 |
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".