Mental health, risk behaviors, and social life factors in relation to adolescents’ suicide ideation, plans and attempt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated differences in mental health and well-being, risk behaviors, and social life factors among adolescents who experienced different forms of suicidality. METHODS: We examined 18-years-olds in the Danish National Birth Cohort (N = 47,852). Suicidality was defined with mutually exclusive categories ranging from no suicidality, self-reported suicide ideation, plans, and attempt as well as hospital-recorded suicide attempt. The proportion of adolescents with self-reported poor mental health and well-being, risk behaviors, and social life factors were compared across forms of suicidality. Sample weights were applied. RESULTS: Depressive symptoms were reported by 14% (95% CI 13%;14%) of girls with no suicidality, 44% (95% CI 43%;45%) of girls with suicide ideation, and 68% (95% CI 65%;72%) 66% (95% CI 60%;72%) of girls with self-reported suicide attempt or hospital-recorded suicide attempt respectively. Among boys, depressive symptoms were reported by 5% (95% CI 4%;5%) of those with no suicidality, 27% (95% CI 26%;28%) of those with suicide ideation, and 51% (95% CI 45%;57%) and 40% (95% CI 22%;58%) of those with self-reported suicide attempt or hospital-recorded suicide attempt respectively. Likewise, other aspects of poor mental health and well-being gradually increased relative with more severe forms of suicidality, while no notable differences were identified between adolescents with self-reported and hospital-recorded suicide attempt. Similar tendencies were observed for risk behaviors and social life factors. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that adolescents with suicidality, including the large proportion with suicide ideation only, faces challenges across several parameters of mental health and well-being, risk behavior, and social life factors. This emphasizes the need for community-based interventions to identify and support the large group of adolescents experiencing both more and less severe forms of suicidality. Clinicians should prioritize comprehensive psychiatric intervention to address the complex needs of suicidal adolescents effectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".