Predictors of Self-Injurious Thoughts and Behaviours Among Canadian Post-Secondary Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-injurious thoughts and behaviours (SITB) represent a collection of life-threatening outcomes ranging from non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI, e.g., self-cutting) to suicidal thoughts (ST) and suicide attempts (SA). Suicide has been identified as a major public health problem and the second leading cause of death among young adults (18 to 24 years), with peak developmental transitions such as attending post-secondary education presenting as a strong catalyst for SITB engagement. Although SITBs have undergone rigorous examination over the years, there remain inconsistencies in the classification of non-suicidal and suicidal SITBs and the prevalence of subsequent risk factors specific to young adults. The purpose of this study was to examine the pre-existing and emerging biopsychosocial risk factors associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviours and non-suicidal self-injury among post-secondary students. While several researchers approach the topic of suicidal thoughts and behaviours separately from non-suicidal self-injury, this study examines the two constructs concurrently and explores risk factors common to both. Using data from the 2013 (n=354) and 2016 (n=270) American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA), a cross-sectional survey of the health behaviours of Canadian post-secondary students, this study examined the prevalence of 13 biopsychosocial risk factors in a group of students who endorsed engagement in SITB. Of the 13 risk factors examined in the current study, results demonstrate three pre-existing risk factors (interpersonal trauma, substance use and diagnosis of a mental health issue) and three emerging risk factors (disability identification, sleep disturbance and negative affect) converging in the two student samples. Understanding emerging risk factors may help improve suicide risk assessment tools and mitigate suicidal tendencies by providing clinical interventions at earlier stages for post-secondary students. Sleep problems may be a particularly important intervention target because of their non-stigmatizing nature and amenability to mental health treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; 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".