Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Expert commentary highlights an evidence paradox in youth suicide prevention, suggesting clear decision rules are needed when both action and inaction cause harm.
The recent Editorial on youth suicide prevention in the Americas argues that emerging evidence is no reason to postpone proportionate action.1 We agree. Proportionality, however, remains to be specified as a decision rule. This matters because youth suicide exemplifies an evidence paradox: the populations at greatest risk are often those in whom definitive trials are hardest to conduct.2 The unresolved question is therefore what evidentiary threshold should justify action when both intervention and inaction can cause harm.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neto et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: