An Exploratory Study on the Suicidal Behaviours of People With Intellectual Disability or Autism: Examining Their Understanding of Suicide and Death, and the Perceptions of Their Direct Support Staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disability or autism exhibit suicidal behaviours at an equal or greater rate than the general population, yet little is known about associated risk factors. This study explores suicidality in these populations, focusing on their understanding of suicide and death and perceptions of their direct support staff regarding their suicidality. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews from 23 suicidal and non-suicidal participants and their support staff were analysed qualitatively to extract common themes and compare between groups. RESULTS: A breadth of suicidal behaviours was documented. Generally, suicidal participants demonstrated a more elaborate understanding of suicide and death than non-suicidal participants. While staff often acknowledged never having discussed the topic with their client, most assumed they understood death accurately. CONCLUSION: Results suggest interactions between conceptions of death and suicidal behaviour and a need for discussion around death and suicide in clinical settings. Implications for future research and clinical practice are discussed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".