ReviewCurrent opinion in psychology2024
Integrating insights from implementation science and behavioral economics to strengthen suicide screening strategies for pediatric populations.
Review in Current opinion in psychology, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Suicide is a leading cause of death for young people globally. Professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommend suicide screening for every young person at every healthcare contact and these guidelines are now being implemented across the US. To optimize deployment of these guidelines, we draw on insights from two parallel fields, implementation science - or the study of how to support clinicians in providing evidence-based care within organizational constraints - and behavioral economics, which centers human decision-making. In this brief review, we offer potential barriers to suicide screening and strategies to address barriers drawing on these two literatures, illustrating how best to integrate insights from these fields for maximal impact.
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.