Table 1.
Quality assessment results.
| Study | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | Mean | Overall rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Suicidal behaviors | ||||||||||
| Collett et al. (2016) | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | Good |
| Hasking et al. (2019)* | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | Good |
| Hatchel et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 2.5 | Fair |
| Hirsch et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| Kelley et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| LoParo et al. (2018) | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | Good |
| Rabon et al. (2018) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| Rabon et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | NR | CD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| Sun et al. (2020) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | Good |
| Umphrey et al. (2020) | 0 | 0 | NR | NR | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2.5 | Fair |
| Vigna et al. (2020)* | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| Zeifman et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | Good |
| Zhang et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | NR | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | Good |
| Non-suicidal self–injury | ||||||||||
| Forkus et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 1 | CD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | Fair |
| Kaniuka et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1.5 | Good |
| Nagy (2017) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0.5 | Good |
| Wu et al. (2019) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2.5 | Fair |
| Xavier et al. (2016) | 0 | 0 | 0 | CD | 1 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | 2 | Good |
Results show combined results of two assessors. (1). Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated? (2). Was the study population clearly specified and defined? (3). Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%? (4). Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations? (5). Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants? (6). Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided? (7). Were the exposure measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (8). Were the outcome measures clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants? (9). Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
Response options are 0 = Yes, 1 = No, or Other. Other could be delineated into CD, cannot determine; NR, not reported; NA, not applicable.
Studies reported both suicidal thoughts and behaviors (STBs) and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI).