Text Messaging to Extend School-Based Suicide Prevention: Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide is the third-leading cause of death among US adolescents aged 10-19 years, and about 10% attempt suicide each year. School-based universal prevention may reduce youth suicidal behavior. Sources of Strength uses a peer leader network diffusion model to promote healthy norms across a school population. A key challenge within schoolwide programs is reaching a large and diverse array of students, especially those less engaged with their peers. Motivated by this challenge, we developed and field-tested Text4Strength-a program of automated text messages targeting help-seeking attitudes and norms, social coping resources, and emotion regulation skills. OBJECTIVE: This study conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial of Text4Strength in 1 high school as an extension of an ongoing schoolwide program (Sources of Strength), to test its impact on targets that have the potential to reduce suicidal behavior. METHODS: Students at an upstate New York high school (N=223) received 1-2 text messages per week for 9 weeks, targeting strategies for coping with difficult feelings and experiences through clarifying emotions and focusing on positive affect concepts, awareness, and strengthening of youth-adult relationships; and positive help-seeking norms, skills, and resources. Surveys were administered at baseline, immediately post intervention and 3 months after texting ended. We measured proximal intervention targets (methods of coping during stressful events, ability to make sense of their own emotions, feelings of powerlessness during emotion management and recovery, relations with trusted adults at school, and help-seeking behaviors), symptoms and suicide ideation, and student replies to messages. RESULTS: No significant effects were observed for any outcome at either follow-up time point. Results showed that if there is a true (but undetected) intervention effect, it is small. Students with fewer friend nominations did not interact any more or less with the text messages. Exploratory moderation analyses observed no interaction between the intervention condition and the number of friends or baseline suicide ideation at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to a promising previous field test, these results suggest that Text4Strength is unlikely to have impacted the outcomes of interest and that undetected moderate or large effects can be ruled out with high confidence. Although motivated by the need to reach more isolated students, students with fewer friends did not engage more or show a greater effect than other participants. This study was conducted in a single high school that was already implementing Sources of Strength, so the bar for showing a distinct effect from texting alone was high. Many further channels for reaching youth through private messaging remain unexplored. Alternative delivery systems should be investigated, such as embedding messaging in gaming chat systems and other media. More sophisticated systems drawing on chatbots may also achieve better outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03145363; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03145363.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".