Scoping review on prevention of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in adolescents: methods, effectiveness and future directions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Despite the extensive implementation of suicide prevention strategies targeting suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB) in adolescents, there remains a concerning lack of improvement in the situation. In this comprehensive scoping review, our objective was to provide insights into prevention methods for suicidal thoughts and behaviors directed towards adolescents, including their effectiveness, public perception, and potential adaptations. Method: A scoping review was conducted, encompassing 71 articles including systematic review, clinical trials and qualitative studies for a wider understanding. Most articles included focus generally on adolescents aged 10-20. Results: No single intervention has shown expected effectiveness, collective efforts have laid a solid foundation for suicide prevention. Promising interventions include cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and incorporating Technology-based interventions. However, challenges persist in promoting help-seeking behaviors and addressing barriers such as stigma, the natural impulsive nature of adolescents and difficulty in selecting and defining data and designs. Discussion: This review underscores the need for a holistic approach to suicide prevention, integrating social, emotional, and psychological dimensions. Successful interventions target underlying issues like depression and loneliness rather than solely focusing on suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STB). Combining direct and indirect interventions is a sensible approach for both immediate and long-term results. Understanding Generation Z's unique needs, influenced by technology and diverse perspectives, is crucial for effective prevention. Conclusion: Involving adolescents and adopting patient-centered healthcare with outcome measures like Patient Perceived Outcome Measures can enhance suicide prevention efforts by prioritizing safety and patient experiences.
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 | 0.051 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| 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".