Youth self-harm and the role of reasons for living and hope: A secondary analysis from a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-harm (SH) is one of the strongest predictors of eventual death by suicide. This study examines the potential protective role of reasons for living (RFL) and hope in youth with a history of self-harm using data from a randomized control trial (RCT) of brief cognitive behavioural therapy (BCBT). A single-blind, pilot RCT examined the efficacy of BCBT for suicide prevention versus an attentional control in youth aged 15-25 admitted to hospital following self-harm. Subjects’ reasons for living and hope were measured weekly by the Reasons for Living Scale (RFL) and Adult Hope Scale (AHS), respectively, for 10 weeks of acute treatment. Logistic regression was performed to evaluate whether baseline RFL and AHS scores predicted repeat self-harm. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare median RFL and AHS scores. Our study did not find associations between reasons for living or hope and repeat self-harm in youth. Treatment with BCBT was also not associated with improved scores on either measure.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 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".