ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022
Difference and Analysis of Evaluating Psychological Monitors' Interview and Classmates' Being Interviewed About Suicide.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, suicide has become the leading cause of unnatural death among college students in China. Psychological monitors, as class cadres who manage affairs related to mental health within their classes, are critical in identifying and intervening in psychological crises among their classmates. In China, however, talking about death is a cultural taboo, and many mental health workers have expressed concern about their implementation of interviews about suicide with others. Generally speaking, interviews with suicidal classmates are usually conducted by professional psychological experts and psychological monitors (psychological monitors are non-professional peer counselors in China). Such classmates that have undergone both the aforementioned types of interviews were investigated in this paper. However, this paper focuses on two issues. Firstly, what are the perceptions of classmates who have been interviewed toward the experience of being interviewed by psychological monitors? Secondly, what are the psychological monitors' perceptions of their implementation of interviews about suicide with classmates? In this study, 1,664 classmates who had been interviewed and 1,320 psychological monitors were surveyed by means of an online questionnaire. The results showed that classmates who have been interviewed perceived their experience of being interviewed by a psychological monitor about suicide more positively than the psychological monitors who viewed their implementation of interviews about suicide with classmates. Among the classmates who have been interviewed, three categories of classmates have more positive perceptions of their experience of being interviewed by a psychological monitor about suicide. Category one is males. Category two is those who were willing to seek help from the psychological monitors. Category three is those who had a more correct attitude toward mental illness. Among the psychological monitors, three categories of psychological monitors have more positive perceptions of their implementation of interviews about suicide with classmates. Category one is those who have the experience of implementing interviews with their classmates. Category two is those who have received training. Category three is those who had a more correct attitude toward mental illness. Psychological monitors can interview classmates confidently, and the training of psychological monitors on mental health knowledge should be strengthened in universities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.