English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background: Although many suicide risk assessment tools are available in the world, their validity is not adequately assessed. In this study, we aimed to develop and evaluate a suicide risk assessment model among Chinese rural youths aged 15–34 years. Method: Subjects were 373 suicide deaths and 507 suicide attempters aged 15–34 years in three Chinese provinces (Shandong, Liaoning, and Hunan). Information about the community residents was also collected as the control groups. Social-demographic, social and psychological variables were examined for the suicides, suicide attempters, and community residents. Logistic regressions based on subjects from Shandong and Liaoning provinces were conducted to establish the suicide risk assessment models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn, and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated to show how well the models separated the group being tested into those with and without suicide attempt or suicide. Results: The assessment model for suicide death included education years (OR = 0.773, p &lt; 0.001), agricultural worker (OR = 2.091, p &lt; 0.05), physical health (OR = 0.445, p &lt; 0.05), family suicide history (OR = 6.858, p &lt; 0.001), negative life events (OR = 1.340, p &lt; 0.001), hopelessness (OR = 1.171, p &lt; 0.001), impulsivity (OR = 1.151, p &lt; 0.001), and mental disorder (OR = 8.384, p &lt; 0.001). All these factors were also supported in the assessment model for suicide attempt, with an extension of very poor economic status (OR = 1.941, p &lt; 0.01) and social interaction (OR = 0.855, p &lt; 0.001). The AUC was 0.950 and 0.857 for the sample used to establish the assessment models of suicide death and attempt, respectively. The AUC was 0.967 and 0.942 for the sample used to verify the established assessment models of suicide death and attempt, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with some other assessment tools, the models for suicide death and attempt in the current study performed well among Chinese rural youths aged 15–34 years. A reliable suicide risk assessment approach, which includes multiple risk factors, should be evaluated in various cultures and populations.

Risk Assessment on Suicide Death and Attempt among Chinese Rural Youths Aged 15–34 Years