The self-report survey was administered and proctored by study staff in classrooms at the respondents' respective schools and completed within a single day by each respondent at both Time 1 and Time 2. The Time 2 assessment was completed approximately one week after the school's scheduled Time 1 visit. Study participants selected their preferred language (either English or the local Fijian language) at Time 1 and responded to this (same) preferred language version at Time 2. Study participants received a unique study identification code, which was used for labeling study related documents and preserved capacity to link their responses at Time 1 and Time 2.
Study procedures for assessment with items adapted from GSHS content were developed to facilitate the aims of the main study as well as to follow local (FN-RERC) guidance in responding to at-risk students. Specifically, the portion of the assessment adapted from GSHS content was included in a spiral bound packet alongside additional assessments for psychological and social risk factors relating to study hypotheses. After orienting the study participants to the questionnaire and procedures, study staff responded to queries about the meaning of terms throughout the assessment (e.g., words such as, “calories” and “laxatives”). Participants returned assessments to study staff and waited while they were checked for completeness if time permitted; when missing or duplicate responses were identified, study staff invited participants to complete or clarify their intended response prior to their departure. After we ascertained that a response option to an item about suicide-attempt related injury was frequently misinterpreted, study staff sought to clarify the intended response when relevant and possible as well.
As part of the related, overarching study protocol, we collected additional self-report and anthropomorphic (measured height and weight) data from all study participants as well as interview data from an independently selected sub-sample at follow-up school site visits. These anthropomorphic and interview data overlap with topic content of the GSHS, but are not presented in this paper. Additional relevant details of data collection procedures are reported elsewhere (Becker et al., 2009 (link)) and are also available upon request from the corresponding author. Written parental (or guardian) informed consent and youth assent was obtained for each study participant. Parents and guardians were informed about the study in a letter distributed with support from the school in advance of the study; youth assent was obtained in person. Consent documents were available in both English and in the local vernacular language. This study was part of a protocol carried out in accordance with universal ethical principles (Emanuel et al 2000 (link)) and approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Committee, the Harvard Medical School Committee on Human Studies, and the Fiji National Research Ethical Review Committee.
Study procedures for assessment with items adapted from GSHS content were developed to facilitate the aims of the main study as well as to follow local (FN-RERC) guidance in responding to at-risk students. Specifically, the portion of the assessment adapted from GSHS content was included in a spiral bound packet alongside additional assessments for psychological and social risk factors relating to study hypotheses. After orienting the study participants to the questionnaire and procedures, study staff responded to queries about the meaning of terms throughout the assessment (e.g., words such as, “calories” and “laxatives”). Participants returned assessments to study staff and waited while they were checked for completeness if time permitted; when missing or duplicate responses were identified, study staff invited participants to complete or clarify their intended response prior to their departure. After we ascertained that a response option to an item about suicide-attempt related injury was frequently misinterpreted, study staff sought to clarify the intended response when relevant and possible as well.
As part of the related, overarching study protocol, we collected additional self-report and anthropomorphic (measured height and weight) data from all study participants as well as interview data from an independently selected sub-sample at follow-up school site visits. These anthropomorphic and interview data overlap with topic content of the GSHS, but are not presented in this paper. Additional relevant details of data collection procedures are reported elsewhere (Becker et al., 2009 (link)) and are also available upon request from the corresponding author. Written parental (or guardian) informed consent and youth assent was obtained for each study participant. Parents and guardians were informed about the study in a letter distributed with support from the school in advance of the study; youth assent was obtained in person. Consent documents were available in both English and in the local vernacular language. This study was part of a protocol carried out in accordance with universal ethical principles (Emanuel et al 2000 (link)) and approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Committee, the Harvard Medical School Committee on Human Studies, and the Fiji National Research Ethical Review Committee.
