MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4405263467 · doi:10.2196/67814

Experiences of Peer Mentoring Sexual and Gender Minority Emerging Adults Who Are at Risk for Suicide: Mixed Methods Study

2024· article· en· W4405263467 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer T. Tran, Jessica Webster, James Wolfe, Jennifer Ben Nathan, Lindiwe Mayinja, Marin Kautz, María A. Oquendo, Gregory K. Brown, David S. Mandell, Danielle L. Mowery, José A. Bauermeister, Lily A. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPreprintPsychologySexual minorityPeer reviewPeer supportClinical psychologySexual orientationSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychiatryComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Sexual and Gender Diverse Youth (SGDY) are at increased risk for suicide due to unique experiences including discrimination, family or friend rejection, and low positive affect. Peer mentors (PMs) may offer a unique opportunity for intervention but are underutilized for suicide prevention among SGDY. OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the training needed for PMs when working with SGDY at risk for suicide. We developed an intervention, Supporting Transitions to Adulthood and Reducing Suicide (STARS), to improve suicide prevention among SGDY and increase social support, coping, and positive effects. PMs were trained by a licensed clinical therapist and provided a manual. PMs meet virtually for 6 weeks, providing social support, strategies to diminish the impact of discrimination, connection to safe spaces, and reinforcement of intentions to use Safety Plans with mentees. METHODS: To understand PMs' experiences in their role, including distress, fidelity to the manual, and perceptions of feasibility and acceptability of STARS and mentees' Safety Plan, we collected survey data from mentees and PMs as well as in-depth interviews with PMs after the completion of the intervention. RESULTS: As of September 2024, all peer mentees (N=64) have completed the study and all PMs have finished providing sessions for peer mentees. PMs (n=5) reported overall high comfort (8.52) and low distress (1.93) during sessions. All 5 PMs had high fidelity (>90%) to the PM intervention training. All 5 PMs reported high feasibility (17.50), acceptability (20), and appropriateness (20) of the STARS intervention. Mentees (n=27) reported high confidence ratings (3.54) in speaking with their PMs. CONCLUSIONS: Peer mentorship for SGDY who are at risk for suicide was feasible and acceptable by PMs and mentees alike. PMs reported that they felt comfortable and confident during the sessions. Mentees also reported confidence in working with their PMs. Future research should explore the optimal strategies to support PMs and mentees as they engage in suicide prevention work as well as incorporate feedback from the PMs in this study to ensure optimal outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05018143; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05018143. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.2196/48177.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.206
GPT teacher head0.588
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→