Trajectories of parent criticism across treatment for youth self‐harm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Criticism from parents is a risk factor for poor youth mental health, including self-harm and limited response to psychosocial interventions. We identified trajectories of change in parent criticism across treatment for youth self-harm (suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury) and compared these trajectories on treatment outcomes. METHODS: This is a preregistered secondary analysis of data from the Self-harm Intervention: Family Therapy trial. Participants (N = 831, 11-17 years; 89% girls, 11% boys; 84% White) were clinically referred for self-harm and randomly assigned to family therapy or usual care. A growth mixture model identified trajectories of parent self-reported criticism across baseline, 3, and 6 months. Trajectories were compared on youth self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, and hopelessness, and parent mental distress (baseline, and change from baseline to 12 and 12-18 months). RESULTS: Four trajectories of parent criticism were identified: High and remaining elevated despite a small decrease (51.6%); sharply decreasing (7.6%); low/stable (37.2%); and increasing (3.6%). Youth with parents in the high with small decrease class had more severe baseline suicidal behavior. Treatment type was not related to criticism trajectory. Parent mental distress increased in the increasing criticism class. Youth with parents in the increasing class showed less improvement in suicidal ideation at 12-month follow-up compared to the high with small decrease and sharply decreasing classes. CONCLUSIONS: Current treatments for youth self-harm may not reduce parent criticism to subclinical levels. Increasing parent criticism may forecast poorer response to a range of treatments for youth self-harm and be indicative of increases in parent mental distress.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".