Segmenting or Summing the Parts? A Scoping Review of Male Suicide Research in Canada: La segmentation ou la somme des parties? Un examen de cadrage de la recherche sur le suicide des hommes au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:Suicide in Canadian men is high and rising. Research consistently indicates increased suicide risk in male subgroups including sexual minority, Indigenous, middle-aged, and military men. The current scoping review addresses the research question: Among male subgroups featured in Canadian suicide research, what are the key findings to inform suicide prevention efforts?.Method:A scoping review was undertaken in accord with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Structured searches were conducted in CIHAHL, Medline, PsychInfo, and Web of Science to identify studies reporting suicidality (suicidal ideation, plans and/or attempts) and suicide among men in Canada. Inclusion criteria comprised primary empirical studies featuring Canadian male subgroups published in English from 2009 to 2020 inclusive.Results:Sixty-eight articles met the inclusion criteria, highlighting significant rates of male suicidality and/or suicide in 3 categories: (1) health inequities (<i>n</i> = 29); (2) age-specific (<i>n</i> = 30); and (3) occupation (<i>n</i> = 9). The health inequities category included sexual minority men, Indigenous, and other marginalized males (i.e., homeless, immigrant men, and men who use opiates). Age-specific men focused on adolescents and youth, and middle-aged and older males. Active military, veterans, and first responders featured in the occupation category. Studies compared at risk male subgroups to females, general male populations, and/or other marginalized groups in emphasizing mental health disparities and increased suicide risk. Some men’s suboptimal connections to existing mental health care services were also highlighted.Conclusion:While male subgroups who are vulnerable to suicidality and suicide were consistently described, these insights have not translated to tailored upstream suicide prevention services for Canadian boys and men. There may be some important gains through integrating social and mental health care services for marginalized men, implementing school-based masculinity programs for adolescent males, orientating clinicians to the potential for men’s mid-life suicide risks (i.e., separation, bereavement, retirement) and lobbying employers to norm help-seeking among activate military, veterans, and first responder males.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.053 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".