MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409336934 · doi:10.5334/ijic.icic24208

Service use patterns among youth reporting suicide ideation in an integrated youth service network in British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4409336934 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine Hastings, Guiping Lui, Emilie Mallia, Anne Gadermann, Jason M. Sutherland, Skye Barbic

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Integrated Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuicide ideationService (business)Suicidal ideationSuicide preventionPsychologyPoison controlMedical emergencyMedicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Addressing suicidal behaviors (i.e., ideation or thoughts, planning, or attempt) among youth is increasingly complex and often requires a comprehensive and integrated approach to care. Integrated youth services (IYS) are a growing model of care in which youth can access a range of non-stigmatizing health and social services all delivered within a single location. In British Columbia (BC), Foundry is one of the largest IYS networks in Canada. To date, little is known about the demographics and help-seeking behaviors among youth experiencing suicidal behaviors in IYS. In this study, we examine service patterns and characteristics of youth reporting suicide ideation to better understand and address their IYS care needs. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from Foundry from May 2018 to January 2023, which includes linked demographic, health, and physician-reported survey data aggregated from 13 IYS centres across BC. Survey data is collected during an initial visit to Foundry. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses by various demographics, geographic, and service use variables were compared by youth who reported having suicide ideation (SI) within the ‘past month’ of their visit as compared to youth who reported ‘never’ having SI. Standardized differences (SD) were calculated to determine statistical significance between groups. We examined the proportion of youth reporting SI coming to Foundry by month over the study period. We also examined these trends by certain subpopulations such as gender, sexual identity, race, and age group. Results: A total of 8,347 individuals were included in the study. Of this sample, a total of 6,021 (72%) had reported any lifetime SI. A total of 2,975 (36%) individuals reported having SI in ‘the past month’. We found that youth experiencing SI were more likely to be gender diverse (13% with SI vs. 4% without SI), identified as sexual minorities (45% vs. 22%), Indigenous (11% vs. 8%), insecure housing (8% vs. 4%), and reported as having ‘not always lived with their parents’ (42% vs. 30%) as compared to youth who never had SI. On average, youth reporting SI in the past month had more contact with Foundry services than those without SI (9.1 vs. 5.5 visits), and had accessed other mental health services in the last year (43% vs. 21%). Youth with SI in the past month also had higher distress scores (as measured by the Kessler Psychological Distress score), with 77% having a score over 30 (i.e., ‘likely to have a severe mental health disorder’). We found no substantial change in the overall proportion of youth reporting suicide ideation over the study period, but trends by subpopulations revealed slight increases in the proportion of ‘past month’ suicide ideation among girls and visible minority groups in the last 1-2 few years. Discussion: Many youth seeking IYS services reported having suicide ideation (or thoughts), particularly within the past month of the visit, indicating a major opportunity for low-barrier, early intervention. Our findings characterize those who may be disproportionately impacted and their current help-seeking behaviors within IYS to identify service gaps and needs for targeted intervention.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Integrated Care→Same topicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies→French-language works237,207→