Postvention support to military suicide loss survivors: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: U.S. military suicide affects not only military service members but also military dependants and spouses. Suicide loss survivors experience a multitude of challenges pertaining to complicated grief. This scoping review of the literature aims to gain a better understanding of the psychosocial factors contributing to U.S. military suicide and to increase knowledge of effective treatment interventions available for military suicide loss survivors that will reduce suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviours and will promote healing. Methods: The databases searched for this scoping review were EBSCOhost, PubMed, Sociology Collection, and Research Gate. The articles used for this review were published on or before November 2023. Five studies were included. Results: The primary outcome of this review suggests that peer support groups are a potential suicide postvention strategy. The scoping review showed a substantial gap in the research on military suicide postvention strategies. Few studies addressed the effectiveness of specific interventions. Discussion: Future research to understand the short- and long-term effectiveness of peer support groups and psychoeducational treatment interventions are recommended.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".