Suicidal Ideation, Planning, and Attempts Changes Among Diverse Canadian Public Safety Personnel After the Emotional Resilience Skills Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public safety personnel (PSP) experience occupational stressors and potentially psychologically traumatic events, which increase the odds of screening positive for mental health disorders, and the risk of suicide. This study estimates suicidal ideation, planning, and attempts among Canadian PSP, and assesses associations with Emotional Resilience Skills Training (ERST). METHOD: The current study uses a longitudinal prospective sequential experimental cohort design that engages participants for approximately 16 months. Participants (n = 186, 60.5% men) were administered the structured Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview at three time points relative to the ERST: pre-training, post-training, and 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: At pre-training, PSP reported past-month suicidal ideation (n = 24; 12.9%), planning (n = 7; 3.8%), and no attempts. At post-training, PSP reported past-month suicidal ideation (n = 12; 10.1%), suicidal planning (n < 5), and no attempts (n = 0). At the 1-year follow-up, PSP reported past-month suicidal ideation (n = 7; 12.5%), and no planning (n = 0) or attempts (n = 0). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate suicide-related challenges for PSP, particularly PSP who self-identify as women and females. The results suggest sector-specific differences in suicide attempts, indicating unique sector-specific challenges among PSP. The results evidenced reductions in suicidal ideation and planning directly after ERST; however, attrition impacted analyses at 1-year follow-up. Additional sector-specific mixed-methods research would help inform suicide mitigation strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05530642. Hypotheses Registration: aspredicted.org, #90136. Registered 7 March 2022-Prospectively registered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".