Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Suicide Risk in Adolescents and Young Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To examine the evidence of the impact of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) on suicide risk in adolescents. Method PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were systematically searched. A priori inclusion criteria specified randomized controlled and quasi-experimental studies (published 2013 to 2023) in English, with participants aged 11 to 24 years. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and structured quality appraisals were used to ensure rigor. Studies evaluated CBT's effectiveness in reducing suicidal ideation/attempts. Results Studies ( N = 7) included participants ( N = 3,996) from four countries (Australia, Canada, Iran, and the United States). Six of seven studies demonstrated statistically significant reductions in suicidal ideation with CBT ( p ≤ 0.05). School-based programs showed feasibility in reducing suicide risk while enhancing coping skills. No adverse effects were reported. Conclusion CBT is a safe and effective intervention for reducing suicide risk in adolescents. Findings support its potential as an approach for youth, with further research needed to explore long-term outcomes and diverse populations.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".