The DOI matches its Crossref record; 161 of the 164 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; 41 of the 99 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention
Open accessAbstract
Suicide is the fourth leading cause of death among young people worldwide and the third leading cause of death among those in the US. This review outlines the epidemiology of suicide and suicidal behavior in young people. It discusses intersectionality as an emerging framework to guide research on prevention of suicide in young people and highlights several clinical and community settings that are prime targets for implementation of effective treatment programs and interventions aimed at rapidly reducing the suicide rate in young people. It provides an overview of current approaches to screening and assessment of suicide risk in young people and the commonly used screening tools and assessment measures. It discusses universal, selective, and indicated evidence based suicide focused interventions and highlights components of psychosocial interventions with the strongest evidence for reducing risk. Finally, the review discusses suicide prevention strategies in community settings and considers future research directions and questions challenging the field.
Verified 2026-10-11 · 1 reference not checked yet
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
27 No full text of the sources · 19 Partly supported · 17 Sources not found · 14 Supported · 5 Own method · 5 No basis given · 2 Supported so far · 2 Own interpretation · 1 Not supported · 1 Not checked yet · 1 Own result · accuracy not yet measured
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“No evidence showing effectiveness of gatekeeper training, alone without other interventions, in preventing suicidal behaviors is available.103”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Disputedcites [103] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section on educational and workplace settings (page not provided) reports a reduction in suicide attempts associated with a training intervention delivered to U.S. naval instructors. That is contrary to the claim that no evidence of effectiveness for training without other interventions is available, although the passage does not explicitly call the intervention gatekeeper training. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Disputed
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Living in a home with firearms is associated with a threefold to fourfold increased risk of suicide among young people.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [6] source
The Abstract Conclusions and Conclusion state that adolescents living in homes with firearms had an estimated threefold to fourfold higher suicide risk than those in homes without firearms. The paper cautions that unmeasured confounding and other biases may remain; the claim's association wording is consistent with that caution. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although rare, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts have been reported in children as young as 3-7 years,”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [7] source
The Introduction reports suicidal ideation in young children and describes a study of children aged 2½–5 in which 13 of 16 had made multiple suicide attempts. It calls attempts in this age group a relatively rare phenomenon, supporting the claim that thoughts and attempts have been reported in children as young as ages 3–7. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Several studies have refuted this iatrogenic risk myth, that asking questions about suicide can cause harm.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [92] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion conclusion says that the few studies testing this question suggest asking about suicidal thoughts is not associated with increased suicidal ideation. But the paper does not say they have refuted all possible harm: it describes the evidence as limited and says causal relationships cannot feasibly be tested in at-risk populations. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [93] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A more thorough assessment with a clinician can have therapeutic value, 96 particularly in engaging adolescents in treatment.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [96] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘Therapeutic risk assessment and formulation’ section says that a thoughtful clinician–patient assessment can build therapeutic rapport and affect patient engagement and recovery. The ‘Patients’ experience of risk assessment’ section also describes therapeutic benefits. The paper does not specifically say that this approach is particularly valuable for engaging adolescents in treatment; its conclusion describes applicability across age groups. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [97] source
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Social connectedness is emerging as a potential target in assessing clinical risk and in suicide prevention strategies.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Other risk and protective factors
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [41] source
The Discussion says social and school connectedness are likely targets for risk assessment and preventive intervention. Its summary likewise identifies connectedness as a factor to assess in clinical risk evaluations and target in prevention strategies. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Given that most young people who die by suicide visit a healthcare provider months, sometimes weeks, before their death, pediatric healthcare providers can use screening to begin important conversations about suicide risk via brief, evidence based screening tools.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [56] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that 75% of Medicaid-enrolled youths who died by suicide used health care services in the six months before death, and 44.8% did so in the final month. This supports visits months—and sometimes weeks—before death, but the study's Medicaid-enrolled population does not establish the claim for young people generally. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Psychosocial treatments with the strongest evidence of reducing suicidal ideation and behavior in young people typically include coping skills enhancement, focus on behavior change, and fostering connections with supports (family and/or peer).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Indicated interventions
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [109] source
The Psychological treatment section states that treatments with the strongest preliminary support for reducing suicidal thoughts and behaviours among youth emphasize behaviour change, skill enhancement, and stronger interpersonal bonds. This closely matches the citing sentence’s description of coping skills, behaviour change, and connections with supports. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Using a specific suicide risk screening instrument is recommended, as general mental health or depression screens often under-detect young people experiencing suicidal ideation.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in clinical settings
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [68] source
- Partly supportedcites [69] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that depression screening missed 32% of pediatric medical inpatients identified as at risk for suicide and recommends validated tools that ask youth directly about suicide. The study does not establish that general mental health screens under-detect suicidal ideation, and its finding is specific to pediatric medical patients and suicide risk rather than young people generally. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [70] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: Screening for suicide risk can identify young people at high risk.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Up to 50% of all young people who die by suicide are seen in the emergency department or psychiatric inpatient setting in the year before death.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > "Boundaried settings" and high risk periods
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [55] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Interpretation; page unavailable) reports that 48% of youth who died by suicide had an emergency-department or inpatient contact in the preceding year. But that figure includes inpatient care for any reason, not just psychiatric inpatient care. The Methods (Study Measures; page unavailable) explicitly distinguish mental-health from other inpatient care, so the paper does not establish the claimed percentage for the narrower settings. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [56] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results and Discussion report emergency-department and inpatient visits among Medicaid-enrolled youths who died by suicide, and the Discussion says 21.1% had their final visit in an emergency department. The study examines visits in the 1 and 6 months before death, not the preceding year; it does not establish that up to 50% of all youths who die by suicide visited an emergency department or psychiatric inpatient setting in that year. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 41
- Probably not a substantial claim. 21
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A subsequent study found suicide rates in children <13 years to be twice as high for black children as for white children during 2001-15, a finding observed in boys and girls”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Self-harm
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [16] source
The Discussion states that suicide rates among children younger than 13 were approximately twice as high for black children as for white children, in both boys and girls. The Methods specify the 2001–2015 study period, and the Results report an incidence rate ratio of 1.82 for ages 5–12. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“An analysis of suicide trends from 1993 to 2012 found that rates remained constant overall in children aged 5-11 years, yet increased significantly in black children, while decreasing in white children; small sample sizes did not allow conclusions for American Indian/ Alaska Native and Asian/Pacific Islander children.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Self-harm
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [17] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A gender paradox exists in that suicide rates among young males are roughly three times higher than suicide rates in females, whereas rates of suicidal ideation, suicide plans, and non-fatal suicide attempts are higher in females.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [9] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Gender section (p. 2) describes the gender paradox: completed suicide is generally higher among young males, while suicidal ideation and attempts are higher among females after puberty. The Suicidal ideation section (p. 1) also reports higher rates in girls for ideation with intent or a plan. The copy does not establish a general three-to-one male-to-female suicide-rate ratio, and it identifies China as an exception to the mortality pattern. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites [10] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Problem section says youth suicide rates are at least 2–3 times higher in boys than girls in developed countries, and the Suicide attempts section reports higher prevalence of suicidal ideation and attempts in girls aged 12–24. The paper describes this as a gender paradox, but our copy does not establish higher rates of suicide plans in females; the stated rate comparison is also limited to developed countries. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Abraham, 2017, Adolescent suicide as a global public health issue, Int J Adolesc Med Health source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Intersectionality theory posits that social categories such as sex, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender identity, and sexual orientation intersect to reflect multiple individual attributes and social contexts that influence health and risk behaviors.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Intersectionality of risk factors
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [42] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Some of the potential mechanisms underlying risk in sexual minority, transgender, and/or gender diverse youth include victimization/bullying, familial rejection, and internalized stigma, which may be mitigated by affirming school culture, family support, and inclusive and protective health policies .26”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sexual minority status
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [26] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the National Comorbidity Replication Sample Adolescents study (n=6483), of the 4% of adolescents who reported suicide attempts, 80% reported receiving some kind of mental health treatment in their lifetime, with 55% having begun treatment before the suicidal behavior.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Intervention
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [101] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plainn = 6,483- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“BIPOC young people may also be less connected to mental health treatment and be more likely to present in the emergency department with problems other than mental ill health.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [87] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on risk factors through a JEDI lens reports disparities in Black and Brown youths’ use of behavioral health services, supporting the treatment-connection part of the claim. Neither that section nor the passages on assessment and treatment address whether BIPOC youths are more likely to present to emergency departments with problems other than mental ill health. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [88] source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Although this report included data from a national sample that is similar to the population of US adolescents on a wide range of sociodemographic/geographic variables, treatment was self-reported and no data were collected on the adequacy of treatment.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Intervention
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [101] source
The Methods (Measures, Treatment) says treatment history was obtained from adolescent or parent reports. The Comment (limitations) says reports of treatment were not validated and adequacy of treatment was not examined. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Family cohesion, increased access to care, faith/spiritual factors, cognitive flexibility and emotion regulation skills, and strong interpersonal relationships have been identified as conferring protection against suicidal behavior in young people.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Other risk and protective factors
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [11] Abraham, 2017, Adolescent suicide as a global public health issue, Int J Adolesc Med Health source
- Partly supportedcites [36] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Familial Factors and Suicidality Protective Factors sections identify family cohesion, religious ties, and supportive social relationships as protective against suicidality among African American adolescents. The Personal Factors section identifies some protective coping strategies, but does not establish cognitive flexibility or emotion-regulation skills as protective; it reports that emotion-focused coping was not protective. The reviewed passages also do not identify increased access to care as a protective factor, and the review's population is narrower than young people generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Partly supportedcites [37] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Coping” section reports that support from family and friends is associated with lower levels of depression and suicide among African American youth, but says the direction of effect is unknown. It describes spirituality as a hypothesized protective factor while stating that research has not shown the same protective impact in African American youth. The cited passages do not establish family cohesion, increased access to care, cognitive flexibility, or emotion-regulation skills as protective against suicidal behavior; the claim is also broader than the paper’s focus on African American adolescents. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Once a patient screens positive for suicide risk, a follow-up assessment is a critical best practice, as disposition based on screening alone can fail to respond appropriately to real suicide risk and result in inefficient use of resources.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [73] source
In the Results (Brief Suicide Safety Assessment), the paper calls follow-up assessment a critical step for positive screens because it determines whether further evaluation is needed and can make the difference between an efficient program and an untenable one. The Results (Interpretation of BSSA) also assigns different next steps to low- and high-risk patients, supporting the point that screening alone is insufficient for appropriate disposition. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Supportedcites [95] source
The Discussion’s clinical-pathway passage describes a positive screen followed by a brief suicide safety assessment and calls that second step critical for efficiently choosing an appropriate disposition. The Methods section explains that the assessment examines details of suicide risk before the provider selects among four dispositions. These passages support the claim that disposition should not rest on screening alone; the paper does not report disposition outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Screening for suicide risk can identify young people at high risk.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Mathias and colleagues actually found that suicidal ideation declined compared with baseline after repeated assessments using the Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire-Junior in a population at risk; this suggests that screening is safe and may be helpful to teens struggling with suicidal ideation.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [92] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A recent metaanalysis of self-guided mobile technologies indicated promise, but none has shown superiority over a control condition.165”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Emerging treatments
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [165] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (Principal Findings) says the interventions show promise, and the Conclusions report no significant reduction in suicidal ideation versus a control condition for iBobbly, Virtual Hope Box, or TEC. But Strengths and Limitations says the authors could not conduct a meta-analysis. Moreover, Results (Study Characteristics) reports that TEC reduced several self-injurious outcomes compared with a control app, so the claim that none showed superiority is too broad. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Gatekeeper training programs for parents and teachers show improvements in knowledge of gatekeepers but may not lead to behavior change that results in identification or referral of suicidal young people to further services.158”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [158] source
The Discussion reports improved suicide literacy but insufficient evidence of significant behavioural change. It also says parents and teachers showed similar improvements in knowledge, while neither group improved on behavioural outcomes. The Conclusion likewise finds no clear evidence of increased recognition or response to at-risk young people. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Systematic reviews of school based programs consistently indicate improved knowledge and attitudes toward suicide, but most show no effects on actual suicidal behavior, with the important exception of three large RCTs-Signs of Suicide (SOS), 152 Youth Aware of Mental Health (YAM), 153 and Good Behavior Game (GBG).154”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [154] source
Citation 154 is attached to the Good Behavior Game (GBG), not to the claims about systematic reviews or the SOS and YAM trials. The Introduction identifies the GBG as a randomized classroom intervention, and the Results report reduced suicide ideation and some evidence of reduced attempts in the first cohort, although the effects were weaker in the second cohort. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Efforts to prevent suicide in young people have been integrated into community settings such as schools 105 ; evidence suggests that a few specific school based interventions can prevent suicidal ideation and suicide attempts, with moderate confidence in the effect estimates for both outcomes in the short term.151”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [151] source
The Summary of findings: preventive interventions states that moderate-certainty evidence supports school-based interventions preventing both suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in the short term. The outcomes table specifies a 3-to-12-month follow-up for both outcomes and rates the evidence for each as moderate. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“The longstanding impact of the covid-19 pandemic on suicide in young people is yet to be fully understood, but early data suggest overall that the suicide rate is increasing with a disproportionate impact on minoritized young people in the US.167”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [167] Curtin S, Garnett M, Ahmad F. Provisional numbers and rates of suicide by month and demographic characteristics: United States, 2021. 2022. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/120830. sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Age-adjusted rates by demographic characteristics section reports that the overall US suicide rate rose 4% from 2020 to 2021, and the Discussion reports a significant increase among males aged 15–24. The report breaks rates down by age and sex, not race or ethnicity, so it does not support the claimed disproportionate impact on minoritized young people. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
In the paper
“Worldwide, suicide is the fourth leading cause of death among 15-19 year olds.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Epidemiology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [2] World Health Organization. Deaths by sex and age group for a selected country or area and year. https://platform.who.int/mortality/themes/theme-details/MDB/injuries.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this age related racial disparity has persisted through 2016-20 for pre-adolescents, although suicide rates remain higher in white than black young people after age 12 years (fig 3).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Self-harm
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the US, suicide was the third leading cause of death among 15-19 year olds (2216 deaths) in 2020”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Epidemiology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“American Indian/Alaska Native young people have the highest rates of suicide in the US, 3 with age adjusted rates for 10-19 year olds (12.9 per 100 000) that are 1.9 times the rate for young white people (6.9 per 100 000) and more than two times higher than in young black (5.6 per 100 000), Asian/Pacific Islander (5.5 per 100 000), and Hispanic/Latinx people (5.3 per 100 000).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Self-harm
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“and the second leading cause of death among 10-14 year olds (581 deaths).3”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Epidemiology
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A recent meta-analysis using the World Health Organization's mortality database from 45 mostly high income and middle income countries identified the lowest suicide rate among people aged 10-19 years in Israel (1.31/100 000) and the highest in Estonia (9.72/100 000).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Epidemiology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Recent statistics document more guns than people in the US (393 million guns versus 326 million people: ratio=126 guns per 100 people), with US firearm ownership rates more than sixfold higher than the average of similar wealthy nations.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [5] Ingraham C. There are more guns than people in the United States, according to a new study of global firearm ownership. 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/06/19/there-are-more-guns-than-people-in-the-united-states-according-to-a-new-study-of-global-firearm-ownership/.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Hanging/suffocation is the most common method of suicide among young people worldwide, followed by jumping from a height or jumping/lying in front of a moving object.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“By comparison, the US had the seventh highest rate of suicide in young people (5.91/100 000) and the UK the seventh lowest (2.35/100 000).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Epidemiology
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Suicide is rare before the age of 10 years, with suicide rates thereafter increasing with age throughout adolescence (fig 2).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“By contrast to most other countries, firearms are the most common suicide method among young people in the US, accounting for 43.6% of all deaths by suicide among 10-19 year olds between 2016 and 2020, followed by hanging/suffocation (42.7%) and self-poisoning (6.8%).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“nearly 20% of all deaths in young people in the US in 2020 were from suicide, 3 warranting attention in the primary care setting.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Fatal Injury and Violence Data. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/fatal.html.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“The period immediately following discharge from an inpatient psychiatric hospital or an emergency department visit for suicidal or self-harm behavior poses an extremely high risk of suicide and repeat suicidal/self-harm behavior in young people.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > "Boundaried settings" and high risk periods
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The NICE Guideline Committee determined that risk assessment measures cannot accurately predict risk of suicide or self-harm and that the potential harms of risk stratification outweigh any benefits, partly because of the dynamic nature of suicide risk but also because people who die by suicide often score low on these risk scores.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [98] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Self-harm: assessment, management, and preventing recurrence. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng225.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Family support significantly reduced the association between intersecting marginalized identities and suicidality, framing a potential target for intervention.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Black White
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [46] source
plaindirectn = 5,058- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“but many young people at risk for suicide receive inadequate care and fail to access evidence based, suicide focused intervention.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Intervention
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Common elements of effective interventions include comprehensive assessment to inform treatment, safety planning, family involvement, coping skills training to match the needs identified in the assessment, and promotion of continuity of care.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Psychosocial interventions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [131] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Treatment for Suicidal Ideation, Self-harm, and Suicide Attempts Among Youth. 2020. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep20-06-01-002.pdf.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The UK NICE guidelines recommend against stratification of suicide risk, whereas Joint Commission guidelines in the US endorse determining individuals' level of suicide risk and a plan to mitigate that risk.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Guidelines
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Because emotion focused, more avoidant coping strategies are associated with increased deliberate self-harm, problem focused coping may be protective.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Indicated interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [110] source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) for adolescents is the only intervention that meets criteria for a well established treatment, with two RCTs showing efficacy in reducing suicide risk.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Psychosocial interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [129] source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This review is based on a comprehensive examination of studies published in English and cited in PubMed and PsycInfo between 1 January 2000 and 15 March 2022, as well as selected seminal papers extracted from reference lists of identified articles.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sources and selection criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“an article was included if two authors deemed it relevant to the review (n=14).”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sources and selection criteria
plainn = 14- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this review is focused on suicide in young people in the US, we included a discussion of international guidelines on suicide in young people published during this time period.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sources and selection criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two authors (JLH, JAB) and two research associates did the searches.The same two authors reviewed and summarized each collected article and then determined the most relevant to include in this review, on the basis of topical relevance and clinical relevance.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sources and selection criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We prioritized systematic reviews and meta-analyses over individual studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over non-randomized controlled and quasiexperimental designs, large studies over studies with smaller sample sizes, and studies published recently over older studies.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Sources and selection criteria
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Equity may be a consideration in universal screening, as screening all patients who meet criteria set by the system eliminates clinician bias and may reduce barriers to access to healthcare.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Some states in the US are now mandating that PCPs screen for suicide risk.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [90] Levesque B. Newsom Signs Legislation Requiring Suicide Screening at Hospitals. 2022. https://www.losangelesblade.com/2022/07/19/newsom-signs-legislation-requiring-suicide-screening-at-hospitals/.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“By comparison, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends against stratification of suicide risk into low, medium, or high to determine who should be offered treatment or discharged from hospital or to predict future individual risk of suicide or self-harm.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [98] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Self-harm: assessment, management, and preventing recurrence. 2022. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng225.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In February 2022, Bright Futures/American Academy of Pediatrics recommended screening for suicide risk in young people aged ≥12 years as part of its preventive care periodicity schedule.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [89] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention created the 2022 Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [91] American Academy of Pediatrics. Suicide: Blueprint for Youth Suicide Prevention. https://www.aap.org/suicideprevention.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the US, the leading hospital accreditation body, the Joint Commission, recommends determining level of suicide risk, such as low, medium, and high, and formulating a care plan to tackle and reduce risk.”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Universal versus selective screening
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evidence of the importance of family involvement in treatment for suicidal young people is growing, although few studies have included specific family focused outcome variables.130 148”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Family involvement in interventions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 130 148
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In a long term follow-up, counties exposed to this program during a single year had suicide mortality rates in young people estimated to be 0.9 per 100 000 lower than control counties (P=0.03)one year after the implementation and 1.1 per 100 000 lower than control counties (P=0.01)two years after the implementation.150”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [150] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Very little has been published about the effectiveness of suicide prevention interventions in low-middle income countries internationally, with only one study evaluating suicidal ideation outcomes in adolescents.144”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Selecting interventions
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [144] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“At the 12 month follow-up, those young people participating in YAM reported significantly reduced suicidality, including 55% fewer incident suicide attempts and 50% fewer cases of severe suicidal ideation, compared with controls.153”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [153] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In multiple RCTs, SOS led to a 40-64% reduction in student self-reported suicide attempts, greater knowledge of depression and suicide, and more adaptive attitudes toward these matters.152 155 156”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Strategies for prevention of suicide in young people in community settings
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 152 155 156
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Suicide in young people is preventable through improved identification, prevention, and treatment strategies.
“Suicide in young people is a global public health problem, and improved identification, prevention, and treatment strategies are imperative.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Screening for suicide risk can identify young people at high risk.
“Screening for suicide risk involves use of an evidence based, standardized screening measure to identify young people with suicidal ideation or behavior and can be accomplished at the universal, selective, or indicated level.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“393 million guns versus 326 million people: ratio=126 guns per 100 people”
§ Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention > Suicide methods
Reported 126 · recomputed 120.552147
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · Cited by 9,210
Posner, K., Brown, G. K., Stanley, B., Brent, D. A., Yershova, K. V., Oquendo, M. A., Currier, G. W., Melvin, G. A., Greenhill, L., Shen, S., et al. (2011) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10111704 · Cited by 5,157
Bowleg, L. (2012) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2012.300750 · Cited by 2,996
Self-harm and suicide in adolescents
Hawton, K., Saunders, K. E., & O'Connor, R. C. (2012) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60322-5 · Cited by 2,306
Osman, A., Bagge, C. L., Gutierrez, P. M., Konick, L. C., Kopper, B. A., & Barrios, F. X. (2001) · Assessment · doi:10.1177/107319110100800409 · Cited by 2,276
Nock, M. K., Green, J. G., Hwang, I., McLaughlin, K. A., Sampson, N. A., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Kessler, R. C. (2013) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/2013.jamapsychiatry.55 · Cited by 1,666
Adolescent suicide and suicidal behavior
Bridge, J. A., Goldstein, T. R., & Brent, D. A. (2006) · Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry · doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01615.x · Cited by 1,361
Self-citationYouth Suicide Risk and Preventive Interventions: A Review of the Past 10 Years
Gould, M. S., Greenberg, T., Velting, D. M., & Shaffer, D. (2003) · Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000046821.95464.cf · Cited by 1,264
Bridge, J. A., Iyengar, S., Salary, C. B., Barbe, R. P., Birmaher, B., Pincus, H. A., Ren, L., & Brent, D. A. (2007) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.297.15.1683 · Cited by 1,086
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Joiner TE Jr . Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press, 2005.
- 10.1016/j.jaac.2020.09.013 · DOI · Paper page
- Feasibility of comparing dialectical behavior therapy with treatment as usual for suicidal and self-injuring adolescents: Follow-up data from a small randomized controlled trial. AL Miller (Chair), Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Behavioral and Cognitive Therapies, National Harbor, MD; 2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhou, J., Zheng, Y., Xu, B., Long, S., Zhu, L.-E., Liu, Y., Li, C., Zhang, Y., Liu, M., & Wu, X. (2024) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-024-03274-6 · Cited by 88
“Studies have demonstrated a consistent year-on-year escalation in patient suicides associated with medication use, intensifying concerns among the general public and clinical professionals regarding this phenomenon [16–18].”
BackgroundEhtemam, H., Esfahlani, S. S., Sanaei, A., Ghaemi, M. M., Hajesmaeel‐Gohari, S., Rahimisadegh, R., Bahaadinbeigy, K., Ghasemian, F., & Shirvani, H. (2024) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02524-0 · Cited by 69
“The prevalence of suicide is exceptionally high among young adults, specifically those aged 15 to 19 as it is a fourth cause of death in the world [44].”
BackgroundSchool mental health prevention and intervention strategies in China: a scoping review
Qu, D., Wen, X., Cheng, X., Zhu, A., Wu, Z., Che, L., & Chen, R. (2024) · The Lancet Regional Health - Western Pacific · doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2024.101243 · Cited by 43
“33,34 To date, the experience of the Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate, and Lower Depression (SHIELD) program in the U.S. shows the value of universal screening and speci fi c risk assessment.”
Kim, H., Son, Y., Lee, H., Kang, J., Hammoodi, A., Choi, Y., Kim, H. J., Lee, H., Fond, G. B., Boyer, L., et al. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/55913 · Cited by 32
“Adolescent suicide stands out as a prominent global public health concern, with its rank as the second leading cause of death among young populations underscoring its severity [1,2] Notably, adolescence is a phase characterized by an amplified suicide risk [3].”
BackgroundPrades-Caballero, V., Pérez, J. J. N., & Carbonell, Á. (2024) · Community Mental Health Journal · doi:10.1007/s10597-024-01368-2 · Cited by 48
“Studies often focus on explanations that offer an individualistic, objective, and pathological view of suicide, neglecting the influence of social contexts and ecological factors (Hughes et al., 2023).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Hughes, J. L., Horowitz, L. M., Ackerman, J. P., Adrian, M. C., Campo, J. V., & Bridge, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Nationwide Children's Hospital (US)
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hughes, Jennifer L
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2023-04-24
- Volume
- 381
- Pages
- e070630
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11741005
- OpenAlex
- W4366823295
- Cited by
- 135
- References
- 157
- Citations by year
- 2026: 36 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 6.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
- National Institutes of Health
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
- National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH127476, ZIAMH002922, P50MH129708)
- Center for Mental Health Services
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Injury Epidemiology and Prevention
- Keywords
- youth suicide, suicide risk assessment, suicide risk screening, suicide prevention, intersectionality, suicide epidemiology, suicidal behavior, psychosocial interventions, evidence-based interventions, community-based prevention
- MeSH terms
- Suicide Prevention, Adolescent, Humans, Suicide, Risk Assessment, Suicidal Ideation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
