Adolescent suicide prevention: Gender differences in students' perceptions of the acceptability and intrusiveness of school-based screening programs

Tanya L. Eckert, David N. Miller, T. Christopher Riley-Tillman, George J. DuPaul

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

30 Scopus citations

Abstract

Suicidal behavior is a significant problem among adolescents in the United States. Three types of school-based suicide prevention programs have been proposed to address this problem including curriculum programs, staff in-service training, and school-wide screening. The relative acceptability of these three programs among older adolescents was examined. The sample included 662 freshmen (496 females, 161 males) enrolled in a large private university. Respondents rated the degree to which they considered adolescent suicide to be a significant problem, and the acceptability, intrusiveness, and time demands of the three suicide prevention programs. A majority (85.9%) of the sample agreed that adolescent suicide was a significant problem. Significant gender differences were observed in relation to the acceptability ratings of the school-based suicide programs. Female participants rated the curriculum-based program and staff in-service training as more acceptable than male participants. In addition, female participants rated the curriculum-based program as significantly less intrusive and less time demanding than male participants. Implications of these findings for implementation of suicide prevention programs and for future research are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)271-285
Number of pages15
JournalJournal of School Psychology
Volume44
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 2006

Keywords

  • Acceptability
  • Adolescent
  • Intrusiveness
  • Prevention
  • School
  • Suicide

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Adolescent suicide prevention: Gender differences in students' perceptions of the acceptability and intrusiveness of school-based screening programs'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this