The Experiences of Young People With Lived or Living Experience of Suicide of Being Involved as Collaborators or Participants in Suicide Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conducting youth suicide research comes with inherent challenges related to topic and age sensitivities. Despite this, there is a paucity of knowledge about how young people experience their research involvement. This study aimed to explore the experiences of young people with lived or living experience of suicide of being involved as collaborators or participants in suicide research. METHOD: In this qualitative study, 13 semi-structured interviews were conducted via video software between August 11 and November 19, 2021. Participants included those aged 18-29 years, who had lived or living experiences of suicide, had been involved in suicide research, and were living in United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. Eight participants had previously been involved in co-production and five as participants. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and reflexive thematic analysis was used to generate themes. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) Young people want-but don't always receive-support that is individualized, multi-faceted and actionable; (2) The relationship with the researcher drives the experience; and (3) Using traumatic experiences to create positive and meaningful change. CONCLUSION: For young people with lived and living experience of suicide to be safely and effectively involved in suicide research, individual support that is nuanced, dynamic, and tailored is required, regardless of the type of research involvement.
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 | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".