Coping with peer suicidality, help‐seeking intentions, and suicidal attitudes among Asian adolescents: a mixed‐methods study in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adaptive responses to peer suicidality and the involvement of professional help are crucial for adolescent suicide prevention and may be influenced by suicidal attitudes. This study aimed to explore Hong Kong adolescents' responses to and help-seeking intentions for suicidal peers and to examine the influence of suicidal attitudes. METHOD: This study used an exploratory sequential mixed-methods approach targeting Hong Kong adolescents aged 15-19 between September 2018 and October 2019. Adolescents' reactions to peer suicidality, suicidal attitudes, and willingness to help were examined through six focus groups and 12 individual interviews (N = 40). A cross-sectional survey (N = 1676) was subsequently conducted to investigate the prevalence of different responses to peer suicidality, help-seeking intentions, differences by background characteristics, and the impacts of suicidal attitudes. RESULTS: Qualitative findings revealed three major themes: attitudes toward suicide, reactions to peer distress and suicidality, and willingness to help suicidal individuals. Most survey respondents reported actively responding and seeking informal help, but not professional support. Differences were observed based on sex, academic performance, and self-suicidality. Notably, a stigmatizing attitude was positively associated with both response types and informal help-seeking intentions. The belief that suicide is unpreventable was positively associated with passive responses but negatively associated with active responses and informal help-seeking intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight variability in adolescents' responses to peer suicidality and help-seeking intentions, underscoring the need for attitude-tailored courses and more systematic, action-based gatekeeper training. Recommendations are provided to enhance the effectiveness of mental health first aid programs through public education, school interventions, and media campaigns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".