ADOLESCENTS SUICIDE group name
ATTACHED IS THE Template for Assignment / Matrix and two articles that were chosen
A. Clinical Question (30 points/15%)
1. Describe the problem: What is the focus of your group’s work?
2. Significance of problem: What health outcomes result from your problem? Or what statistics document this is a problem? You may find support on websites for government or professional organizations.
3. Purpose of the paper: What will your paper do or describe?
b. Use Evidence Matrix Table Template: Data Summary – (60 points/30%)
Categorize items in the Evidence Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article.
1. References (recent publication within the last 5 years)
2. Purpose/Hypothesis/Study Question(s)
3. Variables: Independent (I) and Dependent (D)
4. Study Design
5. Sample Size and Selection
6. Data Collection Methods
7. Major Findings (Evidence)
c. Description of Findings (60 points/30%)
Describe the data in the Evidence Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article.
1. Compare and contrast variables within each study.
2. What are the study design and procedures used in each study; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method study, levels of confidence in each study, etc.?
3. Participant demographics and information.
4. Instruments used, including reliability and validity.
5. How do the research findings provide evidence to support your clinical problem, or what further evidence is needed to answer your question?
6. Next steps: Identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work.
d. Conclusion (20 points/10%)
Review major findings in a summary paragraph.
1. Evidence to address your clinical problem.
2. Make a connection back to all the included sections.
3. Wrap up the assignment and give the reader something to think about.
e. Format (30 points/15%)
1. Correct grammar and spelling
2. Include a title and reference page
3. Use of headings for each section:
o Synthesis of the Literature
Implications for Future Work
5. Adheres to current APA formatting and guidelines
6. Include at least two (2) scholarly, current (within 5 years) primary sources other than the textbook
7. 3-4 pages in length, excluding appendices, title, and reference pages
ADOLESCENTS SUICIDE group name ATTACHED IS THE Template for Assignment / Matrix and two articles that were chosen A. Clinical Question (30 points/15%) 1. Describe the problem: What is
NR449 Evidence-Based Practice RUA: Analyzing Published Research Evidence Matrix Table Article References Purpose Hypothesis Study Question(s) Variables Independent(I) Dependent(D) Study Design Sample Size & Selection Data Collection Methods Major Finding(s) 1 (SAMPLE ARTICLE) Smith, L. (2013). What should I eat? A focus for those living with diabetes. Journal of Nursing Education, 1 (4) 111-112. How do educational support groups effect dietary modifications in patients with diabetes? D-Dietary modifications I-Education Qualitative N- 18 Convenience sample-selected from local support group in Pittsburgh, PA Focus Groups Support and education improved compliance with dietary modifications. 1 2 3 4 5 © 2021 Chamberlain University. All Rights Reserved NR449_Matrix_Table_V4_JUL22 1
ADOLESCENTS SUICIDE group name ATTACHED IS THE Template for Assignment / Matrix and two articles that were chosen A. Clinical Question (30 points/15%) 1. Describe the problem: What is
0 Your Title Here Your Name (without credentials) Chamberlain University College of Nursing Course Number: Course Name Name of Instructor Assignment Due Date Title of Your Paper in Upper and Lower Case (Centered, Bold) This Template is a guide, please refer to your rubric for all criteria, and feel free to adjust the headings names. This is just an example of how to structure your paper using headings with some content from the rubric. Type your introduction here. Although the first paragraph after the paper title is the introduction, no heading labeled “Introduction” is used. This is a great place to utilize a scholarly resource, to emphasize why the topic is important. Problem This section will discuss your Clinical Question. Be sure to talk about these following rubric critera below. Describe the problem: What is the focus of your group’s work? Significance of problem: What health outcomes result from your problem? Or what statistics document this is a problem? You may find support on websites for government or professional organizations. Purpose of the paper: What will your paper do or describe? Evidence Matrix Table: Data Summary Include a few lines describing what you are going to discuss here as a brief introduction. When done write a sentence telling the reader to please see Appendix A. (This is at the end after your references and is your matrix table that you will complete). Synthesis of the Literature This is the section for Description of Findings. Describe the data in the Matrix Table, including proper intext citations and reference list entries for each article. (Delete this information) Variables Compare and contrast variables within each study. Methods What are the study design and procedures used in each study; qualitative, quantitative, or mixed method study, levels of confidence in each study, etc.? Participants Participant demographics and information. Instruments Instruments used, including reliability and validity Implications for Future Work How do the research findings provide evidence to support your clinical problem, or what further evidence is needed to answer your question? Next steps: Identify two questions that can help guide the group’s work. Conclusion Papers should end with a conclusion or summary. It should be concise and contain no new information. No matter how much space remains on the page, the references always start on a separate page (insert a page break after the conclusion so that the references will start on a new page). Review major findings in a summary paragraph. 1. Evidence to address your clinical problem. 2. Make a connection back to all the included sections. 3. Wrap up the assignment and give the reader something to think about. References (centered, bold) Type your reference here using hanging indent and double line spacing (under “Paragraph” on the Home toolbar ribbon). Refrences in alphabetical order. See your APA Manual and the resources in the APA section of Resources for reference formatting. Journal Citation Example: Author, A. A., Author, B. B., & Author, C. C. (Year). Title of article. Title of Periodical, volume number(issue number), pages. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy Website Example: Lastname, F. M. (Year, Month Date). Title of page. Site name. URL Format for Books: Author, A. A. (Year of publication). Title of work: Capital letter also for subtitle. Publisher Name. DOI (if available) Appendix A (Appendix is on its own page after references) Subject of the Appendix (Evidence Matrix Table: Data Summary is fine) Article References Purpose Hypothesis Study Question(s) Variables Independent(I) Dependent(D) Study Design Sample Size & Selection Data Collection Methods Major Finding(s) 1 Smith, L. (2013). What How do educational support D-Dietary Quantitative N- 18 Focus Groups Support and education (SAMPLE should I eat? A focus for groups effect dietary modifications modifications Convenience improved compliance with ARTICLE) those living with diabetes. in patients with diabetes? I-Education sample-selected dietary modifications. Journal of Nursing from local support Education, 1(4), 111-112. group in Pittsburgh, PA 1 2 3 4 5
ADOLESCENTS SUICIDE group name ATTACHED IS THE Template for Assignment / Matrix and two articles that were chosen A. Clinical Question (30 points/15%) 1. Describe the problem: What is
Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02166-1 PROTOCOL © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ publi cdoma in/ zero/1. 0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Open Access Systematic R eviews Exploring adolescents’ perspectives on and experiences with post -primary school-based suicide prevention: a meta- ethnography protocol Eibhlin H. Walsh 1,2,3* , Matthew P. Herring 4,5 and Jennifer McMahon 1,2,3 Abstract Background Globally, suicide is the fourth leading cause of adolescent mortality. Although post-primary school- based suicide prevention (PSSP) interventions are an evidence-based strategy for targeting adolescent suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs), PSSP eectiveness does not easily translate to school settings. Adolescents’ perspec- tives on PSSP are particularly important for (1) intervention eectiveness and implementation in both research and practice, (2) addressing PSSP evidence-practice gaps, and (3) enhancing meaningful adolescent involvement in PSSP, yet there is a gap in understanding adolescents’ experiences of engaging with PSSP. As such, this protocol outlines a meta-ethnography which will explore and synthesize adolescents’ perspectives on engaging with PSSP interventions, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-researchers. Methods The meta-ethnography protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. The protocol was guided by the seven-stage process for meta-ethnography proposed by Noblit and Hare. Searches of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, and study refer – ence lists will identify peer-reviewed studies. Gray literature will be identied by searches in ProQuest, British Library EThOS, and DART-Europe E-theses Portal. The main reviewer will initially assess the eligibility of studies based on title and abstract, with full texts reviewed by at least two reviewers. Findings of the included studies will be synthesized in line with Noblit and Hare’s stages and evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the rst proposed meta-ethnography to explore and integrate the ndings of qualitative studies exploring adolescents’ perspectives on engaging with PSSP interventions. Understanding adoles- cents’ experiences of engaging with PSSP will impact the eld of PSSP in several ways by (1) enhancing research pro – cesses and intervention eectiveness and implementation, (2) informing decision-making and policymaking relevant to practice, (3) guiding meaningful adolescent involvement in PSSP, and (4) contributing to knowledge on the safety implications of engaging adolescents in PSSP. Finally, it is expected that the insights from this meta-ethnography will be widely applicable, given the growing demand for meaningful youth involvement in health-related elds. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022319424. *Correspondence: Eibhlin H. Walsh [email protected] Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Page 2 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 Keywords Post-primary school-based suicide prevention, Adolescents, Engagement, Involvement, Experiences, Perspectives, Evidence synthesis, Meta-ethnography protocol Background Suicide is the fourth leading cause of mortality in 15–19-year-olds globally [1 ]. Concerns of increased youth suicide beyond COVID-19 [2 –4] necessitates the implementation of eective adolescent suicide prevention strategies. In line with existing denitions of adolescence [5 ], we dene adolescents as young people aged 11–19 years, which aligns with the typi – cal age range of post-primary school students [6 , 7]. Post-primary school-based suicide prevention (PSSP) is an evidence-based approach for targeting adolescent STBs [8 , 9], which are prominent risk factors for death by suicide . Despite the potential of PSSP to be a key adolescent suicide prevention approach, there are persistent challenges to translating the eectiveness of PSSP research to school settings, resulting in evidence- practice gaps [11, 12]. Adolescents’ experiences of engaging with PSSP are largely unexplored but are yet likely paramount to bridging the evidence-practice gap in PSSP. How acceptable and suitable health interventions are per – ceived by individuals engaged in interventions is critical to both intervention eectiveness  and implementa – tion . Engagement encompasses a variety of ways in which individuals are involved in interventions in research and practice, from participation as end-users to planning, design, analysis, translation, and dis – semination [15, 16]. Adolescents not only engage with suicide prevention as research participants and inter – vention end-users, but also as intervention facilitators [ 17] and advisors [18, 19] and co-researchers . A review of school-based mental health interventions supported intervention delity components linked to adolescents’ perspectives (i.e., receptiveness to inter – ventions) as stronger predictors of postvention mental health outcomes, in comparison to intervention delity components linked to the intervention itself (i.e., inter – vention quality), indicating that adolescents’ perspec – tives on school-based mental health interventions are markedly important to intervention success . e particular importance of understanding adolescents’ experiences of engaging with PSSP research is further exemplied by (1) the common delivery of PSSP in classrooms or to groups of adolescents who are devel – opmentally more susceptible to peer inuence [21, 22], (2) the links between adolescents’ diculties in engag – ing with PSSP research as participants and participant drop out , (3) reports of a weak association between adolescents’ preintervention rates of STBs and perceiv – ing a PSSP intervention as upsetting  and young people’s perceptions of PSSP interventions as intru – sive [25, 26], and (4) the sensitive nature of suicide as a mental health topic . Furthermore, understanding adolescents’ per – spectives on PSSP thus far is a fundamental step in progressing meaningful adolescent engagement in PSSP research, which can be understood as adoles – cents’ active and decisive involvement throughout the research process . One reason that patient and pub – lic involvement in research is gaining traction in recent times  is that interventions are more acceptable and suitable when target populations are meaningfully engaged in the research process . However, mean – ingful adolescent engagement in PSSP research dispro – portionately lacks; for the most part, adolescents did not aid the design of or input on PSSP interventions in a recent review of studies investigating the impact of PSSP interventions on STBs  and partnerships between suicide prevention researchers and young people are sparse . Adultism has positioned young people passively in research leading to lack of agency and space for young people to contribute to research meaningfully . Young people are well-positioned to advise on and partake in decision-making and design processes in suicide prevention [34, 35] and have expressed the importance of their voice in school men – tal health . Moreover, knowledge of adolescents’ perspectives on PSSP and enhancing meaningful adolescent involve – ment in PSSP research also responds to moral and socio-political obligations; the United Nation’s Conven – tion on the Rights of the Child mandates that adoles – cents’ views are forefront to matters concerning them [ 37], and the Lancet Commission on Adolescent Health and Wellbeing advocates for adolescent voice in inter – ventions concerning their well-being . ere is a critical need to address the gap in under – standing adolescents’ perspectives on engaging with PSSP. ere is no known synthesis of the qualitative research exploring and collating the varied experiences of young people engaging with PSSP, despite the exist – ence of qualitative research exploring adolescents’ per – spectives on engaging with PSSP. Meta-ethnography is well-positioned to draw qualitative ndings together, generate over-arching understandings of collective Page 3 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 experiences, and develop insights to inform decision- making . Aim e aim of the current protocol is to outline a meta- ethnography review, which will explore adolescents’ perspectives on and experiences of engaging with PSSP interventions, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-research – ers. e research questions guiding the meta-ethnogra – phy were developed based on the Population, Exposure and Outcome (PEO) framework  and are as follows: (1) What are the perspectives of adolescents aged 11–19 years on engaging with PSSP interventions, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-researchers? (2) What are the experiences of adolescents aged 11–19 years in engaging with PSSP interventions, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facil – itators, and co-designers and co-researchers? Methods/design The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines [ 41] informed the preparation and the reporting of the present meta-ethnography protocol. This protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022319424). Qualitative studies will be identified in the review and subject to a meta-ethnographic approach. Meta- ethnography will be used to synthesise and evalu – ate the outcomes of the included studies, in line with Noblit and Hare’s (1988) seven stage process for con – ducting meta-ethnography, which includes the fol – lowing stages (1) getting started, (2) describing what is relevant to the initial interest, (3) reading included studies, (4) determining how the studies are related, (5) translating the studies into one another, (6) synthe – sising translations, and (7) expressing the synthesis. The meta-ethnography will also be guided by Camp – bell and colleagues , Lee and colleagues , and France and colleagues and will be presented in line with the eMERGe reporting guidance and the PRISMA statement guidelines [44, 45]. Study selection Consistent with the PEO framework studies were eli – gible for inclusion if they sampled adolescents aged 11–19-year-olds who had engaged with PSSP interven – tions as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-researchers (“Popu – lation”); included interventions conducted in post-pri – mary school settings targeting suicide-related outcomes (i.e., STBs, help-seeking behaviors) as both primary intervention outcomes and with other health and well- being outcomes (“Exposure”); and reported adolescents’ experiences with and perspectives on engaging with PSSP (“Outcome”). Inclusion criteria include (1) English language stud – ies, (2) peer-reviewed journal articles and gray literature, and (3) qualitative and mixed-method studies report – ing qualitative data collection methods and qualitative analysis. Exclusion criteria include (1) studies which do not include a method of qualitative data collection or analysis, (2) review and synthesis studies, and (3) studies which sample participants engaging with PSSP located in third-level education or university settings. ird-level education refers to education after second-level school – ing, which results in a level 4 + qualication (i.e., univer – sity degree or degree apprenticeship ). Studies available from database inception will be iden – tied by searches in PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Sci – ence, CINAHL, ERIC, and Scopus. Gray literature will be identied by searches in ProQuest, British Library EOS, and DART-Europe E-theses Portal. Where appropriate, MeSH, subject, and wildcard terms and truncation will be applied to database search strings. Database searches will be supplemented by searches in Google Scholar and reference lists of screened studies. Table 1 outlines the search terms which will be used for the literature searches. If full texts of studies are unavail – able the corresponding author will be contacted, with a period of 21 days the maximum waiting time for stud – ies. Retrieved studies from database searching will be exported to RAYYAN QCRI . Table 1 Search terms for database searches Search terms will be used for Scopus and adapted for other databases PEO framework components Search terms Population adolescen* or teen* or young and adult* or youth or student or child* Exposure education* or school OR high? school or secondary school OR post? primary or school? based or middle? school and prevention or intervention or program* and suicid* Outcomes perspective* or perception* or attitude* or perceive* or understanding or experience* or view* or opinion Page 4 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 Initially, the main reviewer will assess the eligibility of studies based on title and abstract. Any uncertainty of eligibility will be discussed by the reviewers until con – sensus is met. en, the main reviewer will assess the eli – gibility of all full-texts, with full-texts reviewed by at least two reviewers. Any discrepancies in full-text assessment will be discussed with the aim of reaching consensus. If necessary, where consensus cannot be met between the main reviewer and the other reviewer, a third reviewer will be consulted. Inter-rater reliability of full text assess – ment will be quantied using Cohen’s Kappa Measure of Agreement Coecient . All excluded articles (includ – ing duplicates) will be recorded. is selection process will be detailed in the PRISMA ow diagram for system – atic reviews . Quality appraisal Study appraisal will be undertaken using CASP checklists , which will be completed by two reviewers, to both assess quality of the included studies and enhance in- depth understanding of studies. An additional question will be added to the CASP assessment; “Are the interven – tions of interest clearly described?”, similar to the proce – dure of a meta-ethnography synthesis of young people’s experiences with mental health interventions . e consideration to data saturation as part of the CASP checklist criteria will only be given to studies employing qualitative methodologies which recognise data satura – tion as an appropriate conceptual tool . Any disagree – ment in CASP assessments between reviewers will be discussed until consensus is reached. If necessary, where consensus cannot be met between the two reviewers, a third reviewer will be consulted. Stage (1): getting started e topic of interest was identied and discussed by the co-authors and explored based on the literature presented in the “Background ” section of this proto – col. Meta-ethnography was identied as an appropriate methodology to synthesize qualitative research explor – ing experiences and perspectives of adolescents engaging with PSSP . Furthermore, meta-ethnography ena – bles the generation of novel interpretations which both explain and go beyond the ndings of individual studies included in the review [42, 52]. Stage (2): describing what is relevant to the initial interest e end-goal of this stage is to develop an exhaustive list of studies to be included in the meta-ethnography , which will be achieved by study selection procedures. Stage (3): reading included studies Reading the included studies will be undertaken to achieve several goals, including familiarization, extrac – tion, appraisal, and comparison . e main reviewer will also partake in active reading by annotating and cod – ing data, to facilitate in depth appraisal of the studies, as recommended by Lee and colleagues . Studies which lack conceptual depth will not be synthesized, as recom – mended by France and colleagues .e main reviewer will extract participant and study author data relating to adolescents’ experiences with and perspectives on PSSP. Participant data includes participants’ own understand – ing of beliefs and experiences (i.e., rst-order constructs) and study author data includes study authors’ interpreta – tions of participant data (i.e., metaphors, themes, catego – ries, concepts, ideas, metaphors etc.) (i.e., second-order constructs) [39, 42, 43]. e following data from the included studies will be tabulated and described in the main text of the meta-ethnography: (1) Study and inter – vention characteristics (study aims and intervention types), (2) participant demographics and characteristics, (3) school demographics and characteristics, and (4) data collection and analysis details (i.e., data collection method and analytical approach). NVivo 12 software will record data. Stage (4): determining how the studies are related e main reviewer will lead data analysis, and at least one other reviewer will provide critique and guidance on analysis, in line with Lee and colleagues’ recommen – dations of enriching meta-ethnographic interpretation through collaboration. Stage 4 will involve three key steps : (1) listing rst- and second-order constructs and documenting how constructs relate to each other within study accounts, (2) comparison of constructs and study characteristics across studies, and (3) deter – mining how key constructs relate to one another across studies. Firstly, rst- and second-order constructs will be coded using an a priori coding frame based on the research questions, similar to previous meta-ethnog – raphy procedures . Given that study authors report participants’ quotations to support their interpreta – tions of the data, rst-order constructs will be coded (and subsequently analyzed and synthesized) alongside corresponding second-order constructs [53, 54]. Com – monality and reoccurrence between constructs within studies will be recorded. Secondly, coded constructs (and within-study relationships) will be compared across studies. Key themes representing common and reoccur – ring constructs sharing underlying central concepts will be developed. Study characteristics including research design, intervention characteristics, and participant Page 5 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 characteristics will be subject to cross study comparison. irdly, how studies relate to one another (i.e., recipro – cally and/or refutational) will be determined based on the relationships between studies and key themes. Studies will be grouped based on the presence or absence of key themes. e relationships between key themes will also be considered in relation to the research questions and study characteristics [42, 43, 53]. Stage (5): translating the studies into one another Stage 5 will involve the translation of constructs from one study into another to arrive at constructs which embody multiple constructs [42, 53]. e identication of simi – larities and disagreements between studies will guide the subsequent synthesis approaches (i.e., reciprocal transla – tions and refutational synthesis) [39, 42, 53]. Studies will be translated into each other by conducting a constant comparison of the grouped studies, which involves con – ducting between-study comparisons, while maintaining within-study comparisons; for example, key constructs and themes in study one will be compared with key con – structs and themes in study two, and key constructs and themes in study one and study two will be compared with constructs and themes in study three [43, 53, 54]. Stage (6): synthesizing translations e type of synthesis approach undertaken will deter – mine if constructs and their respective translations encompass those in other studies, leading to analysis of competing translations and translation into each other. Stage 6 will result in key meta themes and a line-of argu – ment synthesis will be created from the resulting third- order constructs. Line-of-argument synthesis may lead to a new model or theory beyond the individual interpre – tations of the included studies, about the experiences of young people engaging with PSSP [39, 43, 53]. Stage (7): expressing the synthesis e synthesis will follow the eMERGe reporting guid – ance and will be submitted for peer review publication. It is expected that key ndings from the meta-ethnography will be presented to academic and lay audiences. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the rst proposed meta-eth – nography which will explore and synthesize qualitative studies documenting adolescents’ perspectives on engag – ing with PSSP, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-research – ers. Insights from this meta-ethnography will address a key gap in the eld of PSSP by enhancing understanding of the experiences of adolescents’ engaging with PSSP, such as how acceptable and suitable (or not) PSSP may be perceived by adolescents and the potential barriers to and facilitators of engaging with PSSP. e generation of a “line-of-argument” will result in a novel and overarch – ing understanding of adolescents’ experiences with PSSP, which may reveal interpretations which were not appar – ent in the individual studies . ese insights have potential to have considerable impact in guiding deci – sion-making and policymaking in the eld of PSSP , which could be formative in addressing the longstanding PSSP evidence-practice gap. Given that qualitative analysis of experiences is criti – cal for informing intervention research and highlighting important information relating to intervention context and implementation [56, 57], the application of insights generated from this meta-ethnography could contrib – ute to enhancing PSSP research outcomes, intervention eectiveness, and implementation in practice. Further – more, it is expected that insights from this meta-ethnog – raphy will inform guidance on how adolescents should be involved in PSSP, as participants/end-users, intervention advisors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-research – ers, which is necessary to alter the trajectory of adoles – cents’ lack of meaningful involvement in PSSP research. No known comprehensive guidance of this kind exists. To enhance meaningful youth involvement in youth mental health research in general, research must move away from a focus of young people engaging in research as passive subjects, towards a view of young people as central to research . Collated insights on how ado – lescents perceive their involvement in PSSP research, generated through meta-ethnography, will be pivotal for re-focusing the PSSP research eld towards the experi – ences of adolescents involved in PSSP. Given that meta- ethnography allows for the identication of insights beyond individual studies, potential absences, and mis – interpretations of knowledge in the literature may be highlighted [39, 42], which is particularly important to counter adultism in research and the fact that adoles – cents’ perspectives are typically presented through adult lenses in research . Although evidence does not indicate harmful eects after exposure to suicide research in assessment , screening [60, 61], content ; and participatory-based research [ 20, 63, 64], risks of harm of researching sui – cide remains a steadfast barrier for progressing research on suicide prevention [27, 60], particularly with young people [20, 65]. Insights from this meta-ethnography are essential to understanding the safety implication of engaging adolescents in PSSP. ere is increasing momentum for understanding the involvement of young people involved in research in wider-health-related elds . As such, it is expected that the insights from this meta-ethnography will Page 6 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 transcend the eld of PSSP, given the international calls for enhancing meaningful youth voice and involvement in youth in suicide prevention , school mental health practice , and wider-health related research . With respect to operational issues, initially adolescents’ experiences with and perspectives on PSSP will be syn – thesized with respect to whether adolescents engaged with PSSP as participants/end-users, intervention advi – sors, facilitators, and co-designers and co-researchers. Data will be fully integrated, similar to the procedure of Evans and Hurrell , provided that how adolescents engaged with PSSP is subordinate to the similarities and dierences across the studies. Finally, amendments to the protocol will be described in the completed review publication. Abbreviations PSSP Post-primary school-based suicide prevention STBs Suicidal thoughts and behaviors PRISMA-P Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analy- sis Protocols CASP Critical Appraisal Skills Program Acknowledgements Not applicable. Authors’ contributions EHW and JMM contributed to the protocol conception. EHW drafted the protocol with supervision from JMM and MPH. EHW is the guarantor of the review. The authors revised the protocol and approved the nal version for submission. Funding The rst author is a funded National Institute of Studies in Education PhD student. This funding body did not have any involvement in the design and preparation of this review. The authors have no nancial conicts of interest to declare. Availability of data and materials Not applicable. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Author details 1 School, Child & Youth (SCY ) Mental Health and Wellbeing Research Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, FG150, Foundation build- ing, Limerick, Ireland. 2 National Institute of Studies in Education, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 3 Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 4 Physical Activity for Health Cluster, Health Research Institute, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 5 Department of Physical Education and Sports Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. Received: 24 March 2022 Accepted: 28 December 2022 References 1. World Health Organisation. Suicide. Fact sheets. 2021. https:// www. who. int/ news- room/ fact- sheets/ detail/ suici de . Accessed 16 Mar 2022. 2. Odd D, Williams T, Appleby L, Gunnell D, Luyt K. Child suicide rates during the COVID-19 pandemic in England. J Aect Disord Rep. 2021;6:100273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jadr. 2021. 100273. 3. Robinson J, Kolves K, Sisask M. Introduction to the PLOS ONE collection on ‘understanding and preventing suicide: towards novel and inclusive approaches.’ PLoS ONE. 2022;17(3):e0264984. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 02649 84. 4. Sara G, Wu J, Uesi J, Jong N, Perkes I, Knight K, et al. Growth in emergency department self-harm or suicidal ideation presentations in young people: comparing trends before and since the COVID-19 rst wave in New South Wales, Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2022. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00048 67422 10825 18. 5. World Health Organisation. Adolescent mental health. Fact sheets. 2021. https:// www. who. int/ news- room/ fact- sheets/ detail/ adole scent- mental- health. Accessed 2 Nov 2022. 6. Citizens Information. Starting post-primary school. Primary and post- primary education. 2021. https:// www. citiz ensin forma tion. ie/ en/ educa tion/ prima ry_ and_ post_ prima ry_ educa tion/ going_ to_ post_ prima ry_ school/ post_ prima ry_ educa tion_ life_ event. html#: ~: text= The% 20post% 2Dpri mary% 20or% 20sec ond,age% 20of% 2012% 20or% 2013. Accessed 6 Nov 2022. 7. National Center for Education Statistics. Education indicators: an inter – national perspective. Publications & products. 2022. https:// nces. ed. gov/ pubs/ eiip/ eiip1 s01. asp#: ~: text= Secon dary% 20edu cation% 20cov ers% 20ages% 2011,as% 20gra des% 2010% 20thr ough% 2012. Accessed 6 Nov 2022. 8. Robinson J, Bailey E, Witt K, Stefanac N, Milner A, Currier D, et al. What works in youth suicide prevention? A systematic review and meta-analy- sis. E Clini Med. 2018;4–5:52–91. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. eclinm. 2018. 10. 004. 9. Walsh EH, McMahon J, Herring MP. Research review: the eect of school- based suicide prevention on suicidal ideation and suicide attempts and the role of intervention and contextual factors among adoles- cents: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2022;63(8):836–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ jcpp. 13598. 10. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Pathophysiology and Preven- tion of Adolescent and Adult Suicide. Reducing suicide: a national imperative. Washington: National Academies Press; 2002. 11. Kalafat J, Ryerson DM. The implementation and institutionalization of a school-based youth suicide prevention program. J Prim Prev. 1999;19(3):157–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10226 58826 641. 12. Smith-Millman MK, Flaspohler PD. School-based suicide prevention laws in action: a nationwide investigation of principals’ knowledge of and adherence to state school-based suicide prevention laws. Sch Ment Heal. 2019;11(2):321–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12310- 018- 9287-y . 13. Rojas-Andrade R, Bahamondes LL. Is implementation delity impor – tant? A systematic review on school-based mental health programs. Contemp Sch Psychol. 2019;23(4):339–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s40688- 018- 0175-0. 14. Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health Ment Health Serv Res. 2011;38(2):65–76. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s10488- 010- 0319-7. 15. Campus Engage. Engaged research: society and higher education addressing grand societal challenges together. In: Engaged Research: Society and Higher Education. 2017. https:// resea rch. ie/ resou rces/ publi catio ns/ engag ed- resea rch/. Accessed 6 Mar 2022. 16. Dunne E, Owen D. Student engagement handbook: practice in higher education. 1st ed. Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing; 2013. 17. Wyman PA, Brown CH, LoMurray M, Schmeelk-Cone K, Petrova M, Yu Q, et al. An outcome evaluation of the Sources of Strength suicide preven- tion program delivered by adolescent peer leaders in high schools. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(9):1653–61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2105/ AJPH. 2009. 190025. 18. Robinson WL, Case MH, Whipple CR, Gooden AS, Lopez-Tamayo R, Lam- bert SF, et al. Culturally grounded stress reduction and suicide prevention Page 7 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 for African American adolescents. Pract Innov. 2016;1(2):117–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ pri00 00020. 19. LaFromboise T, Howard-Pitney B. The Zuni Life Skills Development cur – riculum: description and evaluation of a suicide prevention program. J Couns Psychol. 1995;42(4):479–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0167/ 95/ S3. 0O . 20. Thorn P, Hill NT, Lamblin M, Teh Z, Battersby-Coulter R, Rice S, et al. Developing a suicide prevention social media campaign with young people (the #Chatsafe project): co-design approach. JMIR mental health. 2020;7(5):e17520. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ 17520. 21. Prinstein MJ, Dodge KA. Understanding peer inuence in children and adolescents. New York: Guilford Press; 2008. 22. Ciranka S, van den Bos W. Social inuence in adolescent decision-making: a formal framework. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1915. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2019. 01915. 23. Tang TC, Jou SH, Ko CH, Huang SY, Yen CF. Randomized study of school- based intensive interpersonal psychotherapy for depressed adolescents with suicidal risk and parasuicide behaviors. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2009;63(4):463–70. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1440- 1819. 2009. 01991.x. 24. Bailey E, Spittal MJ, Pirkis J, Gould M, Robinson J. Universal suicide preven- tion in young people. Crisis. 2017;38:5. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 0227- 5910/ a0004 65. 25. Orbach I, Bar-Joseph H. The impact of a suicide prevention program for adolescents on suicidal tendencies, hopelessness, ego identity, and cop – ing. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 1993;23(2):120–9. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 1943- 278X. 1993. tb003 76.x. 26. Eckert TL, Miller DN, Riley-Tillman TC, DuPaul GJ. Adolescent suicide pre – vention: gender dierences in students’ perceptions of the acceptability and intrusiveness of school-based screening programs. J Sch Psychol. 2006;44(4):271–85. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jsp. 2006. 05. 001. 27. The Lancet Psychiatry. Protection or paternalism? Lancet Psychiatry. 2022;9(1):1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s2215- 0366(21) 00468-5. 28. MacSweeney N, Bowman S, Kelly C. More than just characters in a story: eective and meaningful involvement of young people in mental health research. J Public Ment Health. 2019;18(1):14–6. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JPMH- 07- 2018- 0053. 29. Wicks P, Richards T, Denegri S, Godlee F. Patients’ roles and rights in research. Brit Med J Publishing Group. 2018;25:362. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. k3193. 30. INVOLVE. The impact of public involvement on research. A Discussion Paper from the INVOLVE Evidence, Knowledge, and Learning Working Group. 2009. 31. Walsh EH, Herring MP, McMahon J. A systematic review of school-based suicide prevention interventions for adolescents, and intervention and contextual factors in prevention. Prev Sci. 2022. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s11121- 022- 01449-2. 32. Bailey E, Teh Z, Bleeker C, Simmons M, Robinson J. Youth partnerships in suicide prevention research: a failed investigator survey. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2020;15(5):1429–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ eip. 13069. 33. Teixeira S, Augsberger A, Richards-Schuster K, Sprague ML. Participatory research approaches with youth: ethics, engagement, and meaningful action. Am J Community Psychol. 2021;68:142–53. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ajcp. 12501. 34. World Health Organization. Live life: an implementation guide for suicide prevention in countries. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2021. (https:// apps. who. int/ iris/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10665/ 341726/ 97892 40026 629- eng. pdf ). 35. Schilling SH, Carreño A, Tapia E, Mascayano F, Pitronello R, Santander F, et al. Experts by experience: qualitative evaluation of adolescent partici- pation in the development of a technological intervention to prevent youth suicide in Chile. Front Psychiatry. 2021;11:522057. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyt. 2020. 522057. 36. Hennessey A, Demkowicz O, Pert K, Ashworth E, Deighton J, Mason C, et al. Children and young people’s perceptions of social, emotional, and mental wellbeing provision and processes in primary and secondary education: a qualitative exploration to inform NICE guidance. 2021; https:// www. nice. org. uk/ guida nce/ gid- ng101 25/ docum ents/ suppo rting- docum entat ion-2. 37. United Nations Human Rights. Convention on the Rights of the Child 1990. Human Rights Instruments. 1989; https:// www. ohchr. org/ en/ profe ssion alint erest/ pages/ crc. aspx. Accessed 21 Feb 2022. 38. Patton GC, Sawyer SM, Santelli JS, Ross DA, A R, Allen NB, et al. Our future: a Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing. Lancet. 2016;387(10036):2423–78. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ s0140- 6736(16) 00579-1. 39. Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. California: Sage; 1988. 40. Capili B. How does research start? Am J Nurs. 2020;120(10):41–4. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1097/ 01. NAJ. 00007 18644. 96765. b3. 41. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis pro – tocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 2046- 4053-4-1. 42. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, Daker-White G, Britten N, Pill R, et al. Evaluating meta ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15:43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3310/ hta15 430. 43. Lee RP, Hart RI, Watson RM, Rapley T. Qualitative synthesis in practice: some pragmatics of meta-ethnography. Qual Res. 2015;15(3):334–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 14687 94114 524221. 44. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12874- 018- 0600-0. 45. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Homann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;10:89. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ bmj. n71. 46. The Good Schools Guide. What is higher education? Higher Education. https:// www. goods chool sguide. co. uk/ caree rs/ higher- educa tion/ what- is- higher- educa tion. Accessed 3 Nov 2022. 47. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan – a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s13643- 016- 0384-4. 48. Cohen J. A coecient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Measur. 1960;20(1):37–46. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64460 02000 104. 49. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP: qualitative research checklist. In: CASP Checklists. 2017. http:// media. wix. com/ ugd/ dded87_ 29c5b 002d9 9342f 788c6 ac670 e49f2 74. pdf . Accessed 4 Feb 2022. 50. Shaw L, Moore D, Nunns M, Thompson Coon J, Ford T, Berry V, et al. Experiences of interventions aiming to improve the mental health and well-being of children and young people with a long-term physical condition: a systematic review and meta-ethnography. Child Care Health Dev. 2019;45(6):832–49. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cch. 12708. 51. Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data satura- tion as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019;13(2):201–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 21596 76X. 2019. 17048 46. 52. Mays N, Pope C, Popay J. Systematically reviewing qualitative and quanti- tative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health eld. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1):6–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1258/ 13558 19054 308576. 53. France EF, Uny I, Ring N, Turley RL, Maxwell M, Duncan EAS, et al. A meth- odological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12874- 019- 0670-7. 54. Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:21. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ 1471- 2288-8- 21. 55. Gilmour L, Ring N, Maxwell M. Review: The views and experiences of suicidal children and young people of mental health support services: a meta-ethnography. Child Adolesc Mental Health. 2019;24:217–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ camh. 12328. 56. Evans R, Hurrell C. The role of schools in children and young people’s self-harm and suicide: systematic review and meta-ethnography of quali- tative research. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:401. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s12889- 016- 3065-2. 57. Lorenc T, Pearson M, Jamal F, Cooper C, Garside R. The role of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in evaluating interventions: a case study. Res Synth Methods. 2012;3(1):1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ jrsm. 1036. 58. Montreuil M, Bogossian A, Laberge-Perrault E, Racine E. A review of approaches, strategies and ethical considerations in participatory Page 8 of 8 Walsh et al. Systematic Reviews (2023) 12:4 research with children. Int J Qual Methods. 2021;20:1609406920987962. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 16094 06920 987962. 59. Coppersmith DD, Fortgang R, Kleiman E, Millner A, Yeager A, Mair P, et al. Frequent assessment of suicidal thinking does not increase suicidal thinking: evidence from a high-resolution real-time monitoring study. PsyArXiv. 2020. https:// schol ar. google. com/ schol ar? hl= en& as_ sdt=0% 2C5&q= Frequ ent+ asses sment+ of+ suici dal+ think ing+ does+ not+ incre ase+ suici dal+ think ing% 3A+ Evide nce+ from+a+ high- resol ution+ real- time+ monit oring+ study & btnG=. Accessed 5 Feb 2022. 60. DeCou CR, Schumann ME. On the iatrogenic risk of assessing suicidality: a meta-analysis. Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2018;48(5):531–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ sltb. 12368. 61. Gould MS, Marrocco FA, Kleinman M, Thomas JG, Mostko K, Cote J, et al. Evaluating iatrogenic risk of youth suicide screening programs: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;293(13):1635–43. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1001/ jama. 293. 13. 1635. 62. Blades CA, Stritzke WGK, Page AC, Brown JD. The benets and risks of asking research participants about suicide: a meta-analysis of the impact of exposure to suicide-related content. Clin Psychol Rev. 2018;64:1–12. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2018. 07. 001. 63. Haddad K, Lindquist-Grantz R, Vilvens H, Jacquez F, Vaughn L. Empower – ing youth to build bridges: youth leadership in suicide prevention. Collab J Commun Based Res Pract. 2020;3:1. https:// doi. org/ 10. 33596/ coll. 41. 64. Robinson J, Bailey E, Hetrick S, Paix S, O’Donnell M, Cox G, et al. Develop – ing social media-based suicide prevention messages in partnership with young people: exploratory study. JMIR Ment Health. 2017;4(4):e40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ mental. 7847. 65. Ballard ED, Stanley IH, Horowitz LM, Cannon EA, Pao M, Bridge JA. Asking youth questions about suicide risk in the pediatric emergency depart – ment: results from a qualitative analysis of patient opinions. Clin Pediatr Emerg Med. 2013;14(1):20–7. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpem. 2013. 01. 001. 66. Sellars E, Pavarini G, Michelson D, Creswell C, Fazel M. Young people’s advisory groups in health research: scoping review and mapping of prac- tices. Arch Dis Child. 2021;106:698–704. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1136/ archd ischi ld- 2020- 320452. 67. Cefai C, Simões C, Caravita CS. A systemic, whole-school approach to mental health and well-being in schools in the EU: Analytical report. Lux – emberg: European Union; 2021. https:// www. um. edu. mt/ libra ry/ oar/ bitst ream/ 12345 6789/ 101739/ 1/A_ syste mic% 2C_ whole- school_ appro ach_ to_ mental_ health_ and_ wellb eing_ in_ schoo ls_ in_ the_ EU% 282021% 29. pdf . Publisher’s NoteSpringer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub – lished maps and institutional aliations. • fast, convenient online submission • thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your eld • rapid publication on acceptance • support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year • At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions Re ady to submit y our researc hReady to submit y our researc h ? Choose BMC and benefit fr om: ? Choose BMC and benefit fr om: