ArticleBMC public health2023
Title page: psychometric properties of literacy of suicide scale (LOSS) in iranian population: long form.
Article in BMC public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suicide literacy in The Gambia.Discover mental health · 2026Review
- Design and psychometric evaluation of the Persian version of the Animal Bite Questionnaire for Children (ABQ-C).BMC public health · 2026Article
- Validation and Testing of a Suicide Prevention Program in Preventing Suicidal Ideation and Improving the Mental Well-Being of School-Going Adolescents: Protocol for a Pre-Post Intervention Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- The status of suicide literacy and suicide stigma: their association with demographic factors among Iranian general population.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the reliability and validity of the literacy of suicide scale among Chinese nurses.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Page: investigating the predictors of general psychological help seeking intention among people who attempted suicide by using structural equation modeling.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Myths about suicide - validating the Hungarian version of the Literacy of Suicide Scale (H-LOSS) on a community sample.BMC public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuicide and suicide attempts are among the most important indicators of mental health in the world. In this research, the validity and reliability of Literacy of Suicide Scale (LOSS) was examined in general people over the age of 18.
methodsThis cross-sectional psychometric study was conducted in 2022 among 952 general population in Iran. Participants were selected by two methods of proportional stratified sampling and simple random sampling. The internal consistency of the tools was assessed using Cronbach's alpha coefficient, and McDonald omega coefficient. Also, test-retest reliability was checked by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC).
resultsIn the confirmatory factor analysis section, the factor loading of all questions were above 0.4 and one questions were deleted and final model with four factors and 25 questions was confirmed (Some of goodness-of-fit indexes: AGFI = 0.910, RMSEA = 0.050, IFI = 0.901, and χ2/df = 3.333). For all questions, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was 0.859, McDonald omega coefficient was 0.866, and ICC was 0.895. Finally, the Persian long version of LOSS was approved with 25 items and four subscales: causes/triggers (9 items), risk factors (7 items), signs and symptoms (5 items) and treatment/prevention (4 items).
conclusionThe Persian long version of LOSS with four subscales and 25 items is an appropriate tool to investigate the state of suicide literacy in the public population.
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.