ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Validating GenAI feedback in suicide prevention training: a mixed-methods study of QPR skill assessment.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Gatekeeper training using the Question, Persuade, and Refer (QPR) model has become a key strategy in suicide prevention. Yet traditional QPR-based training methods are limited by their lack of scales, interactive practice and reliable assessments of skill acquisition. Generative AI (GenAI)-driven simulators can provide a novel solution for this critical gap by offering scalable and cost-effective practices that can be culturally adapted, thus democratizing access to skills training without the potential embarrassment of live roleplay. Nevertheless, the rigorous validation of AI systems as reliable evaluation tools remains an open question. This study seeks to validate the reliability of AI-based assessments in the high-stakes context of suicide prevention, thus constituting a critical step toward using GenAI for scalable skill evaluation. Methods: Three independent experts rated 54 simulated QPR conversations to establish the empirical reliability of a GenAI simulator feedback in the context of suicide prevention training. The primary analysis compared the automated numerical scores of the AI feedback against this human benchmark (RQ1). Secondary analyses included examination of the influence of participant characteristics on ratings (RQ2) and qualitative assessment of the AI feedback for pedagogical depth and accuracy across varied performance levels (RQ3). Results: The primary finding (RQ1) exhibited a moderate-to-strong positive correlation ( Conclusion: This study provides critical initial evidence that GenAI can serve as a reliable feedback tool for evaluating complex crisis intervention skills. Its ability to provide consistent, scalable, and unbiased assessments opens new possibilities for accessible evidence-based training. Despite these strong foundational capabilities, the findings also highlight the need for further calibration to align GenAI's judgment more closely with expert human nuances and enable it to evolve beyond a purely performance-focused tool.
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.