A “Papageno” Story Interview Suicide Prevention Intervention for Young Adults With Past-Month Suicidal Ideation: Uncontrolled Single-Group Pilot Study of Feedback and Acceptability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Suicide continues to be a leading cause of death for young people, and the 2024 US National Strategy for Suicide Prevention has called for innovative approaches to suicide prevention. This strategy acknowledges the potential of the "Papageno" effect or the suicide preventive effect of stories of people who overcome suicide crises. OBJECTIVE: This pilot study's objectives were to develop filmed interviews of young adults sharing their personal story of overcoming suicide crises ("Papageno" stories) and to examine their acceptability and appropriateness in a sample of young adults with a past-month history of suicidal ideation. METHODS: In total, 6 filmed interviews (5 "Papageno" story interviews and 1 active control interview) were videotaped. Study participants were recruited from Instagram and community organizations. Interviewees and participants were between the ages of 18 and 24 years. To be eligible for the study, participants responded "yes" to the question, "In the past 1 month, have you wished you were dead or wished you could go to sleep and not wake up?" Participants provided demographic information and responded to a Brief Mood Introspection Scale. They were subsequently instructed to watch the video, which was followed by the Brief Mood Introspection Scale and questions about the acceptability and helpfulness of the video. They were also asked 5 free-response questions regarding their likes, dislikes, suggestions, and overall reactions to the filmed interviews and whether they would watch it again. RESULTS: We collected 3-4 participant responses per video for each of the 5 different interview videos (a total of 16 responses). The videos were found to be generally acceptable and appropriate, and no participants reported feeling less likely to reach out for help when needed. Qualitative feedback yielded recommendations to shorten the length of the videos as well as to include multiple interviewees in future videos so that the audience has a better chance to identify with the interviewee. CONCLUSIONS: Filmed "Papageno" interviews were rated as generally acceptable and appropriate, reinforcing the need for more research examining their potential effects on proximal risk factors for suicide. Next steps include the incorporation of feedback to create a singular finalized video and a randomized controlled trial assessing the effects of the Papageno video.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".