MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4395073998 · doi:10.2196/50024

A Web-Based Training Program for School Staff to Respond to Self-Harm: Design and Development of the Supportive Response to Self-Harm Program

2024· article· en· W4395073998 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Anne‐Marie Burn, Poppy Hall, Joanna Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreDepartment of Health and Social CareMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsHarmProgram Design LanguagePsychologyTraining (meteorology)Applied psychologyMedical educationMedicineComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common among adolescents and is a major public health concern. School staff may be the first adults to notice a young person's self-harm and are well placed to provide support or signpost students to help. However, school staff often report that they do not feel equipped or confident to support students. Despite the need, there is a lack of evidence-based training about self-harm for school staff. A web-based training program would provide schools with a flexible and cost-effective method of increasing staff knowledge, skills, and confidence in how to respond to students who self-harm. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to coproduce an evidence-based training program for school staff to improve their skills and confidence in responding to students who self-harm (Supportive Response to Self-Harm [SORTS]). This paper describes the design and development process of an initial prototype coproduced with stakeholders to ensure that the intervention meets their requirements. METHODS: Using a user-centered design and person-based approach, the SORTS prototype was informed by (1) a review of research literature, existing guidelines, and policies; (2) coproduction discussions with the technical provider and subject matter experts (mental health, education, and self-harm); (3) findings from focus groups with young people; and (4) coproduction workshops with school staff. Thematic analysis using the framework method was applied. RESULTS: Coproduction sessions with experts and the technical provider enabled us to produce a draft of the training content, a wireframe, and example high-fidelity user interface designs. Analysis of focus groups and workshops generated four key themes: (1) need for a training program; (2) acceptability, practicality, and implementation; (3) design, content, and navigation; and (4) adaptations and improvements. The findings showed that there is a clear need for a web-based training program about self-harm in schools, and the proposed program content and design were useful, practical, and acceptable. Consultations with stakeholders informed the iterative development of the prototype. CONCLUSIONS: SORTS is a web-based training program for school staff to appropriately respond to students who self-harm that is based on research evidence and developed in collaboration with stakeholders. The SORTS program will equip school staff with the skills and strategies to respond in a supportive way to students who self-harm and encourage schools to adopt a whole-school approach to self-harm. Further research is needed to complete the intervention development based on the feedback from this study and evaluate the program's effectiveness. If found to be effective, the SORTS program could be implemented in schools and other youth organizations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→