ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Expert consensus on involving sexual and gender diverse preteens in suicide research: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSuicide rates among U.S. preteens (ages 8–12) have risen steadily since 2008, signaling a growing crisis in children’s mental health. Sexual and gender diverse (SGD) preteens are at especially high risk, with recent findings showing 4–6 times higher risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors among sexual minority preteens and up to 14-fold higher risk among transgender preteens. Despite these alarming disparities, SGD preteens are often excluded from suicide research due to ethical, legal, and methodological barriers. There is a pressing need for expert-informed best practices to safely and ethically include this population in research.
methodsWe conducted a three-step Delphi process to develop expert-informed guidelines for ethically and effectively engaging SGD preteens at elevated risk in suicide research. The process was shaped by input from youth and adult community advisory boards and included 20 expert panelists across five overlapping roles: researchers, clinicians, legal/regulatory professionals, bioethicists, and community leaders. Experts completed a first-round survey, a structured virtual consensus meeting, and a second-round survey.
resultsConsensus was reached across multiple domains including developmentally appropriate criteria for SGD identity classification in research as well as criteria for classifying heightened suicide risk in preteens. Experts agreed that SGD identity alone should not be used as a proxy for risk nor should any preteens be excluded from research based on clinical severity of symptoms. Experts highlighted feasible sampling methods including convenience and purposive sampling and recruitment and retention strategies aimed at both youth and caregivers. Experts agreed on study safeguards such as provision of mental health resource lists and parental notification if structured risk thresholds were exceeded during research. There was full agreement on the importance of IRB review by individuals with child mental health and SGD expertise, although experts did not achieve consensus on the feasibility of implementing any IRB reforms.
conclusionsThis multi-phase Delphi study produced expert-endorsed recommendations for safely, ethnically, and effectively including SGD preteens at elevated suicide risk in research. These guidelines provide a foundation for inclusive, community-engaged suicide research with vulnerable youth. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.