Hostname: page-component-754f97d4cd-d9lm7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-24T12:53:01.993Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 October 2025

Enoch Kordjo Azasu*
Affiliation:
Social Work, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background. Despite the growing recognition of adolescent suicide as a pressing concern, traditional methods for identifying suicide risk often fail to capture the complex interplay of socio-ecological and psychological factors. The advent of machine learning (ML) offers a transformative opportunity to improve suicide risk prediction and intervention strategies. Objective. This study aims to utilize ML techniques to analyze socio-ecological and psychological risk factors to predict suicide ideation, plans and attempts among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents. Methods. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 1,703 adolescents aged 12–18 years across Ghana measuring psychological factors (depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms etc) and socio-ecological factors (bullying, parental support etc) using validated measures. Descriptive statistics were conducted and random forest and logistic regression models were employed for suicide risk prediction, i.e., ‘ideation, plans and attempts’. Model performance was evaluated using accuracy, sensitivity, specificity and feature importance analysis. Results. Psychological factors such as depression symptoms (r = .42, p < .01), anxiety (r = .38, p < .01) and perceived stress (r = .35, p < .01) were the strongest predictors of suicide ideation, plans and attempts, while parental support emerged as a significant protective factor (r = −.34, p < .01). The random forest model demonstrated good predictive performance (accuracy = 78.3%, AUC = 0.81). Gender differences were observed. Conclusions. This study is the first to apply ML techniques to a nationally representative dataset of Ghanaian adolescents for suicide risk prediction, i.e., ‘ideation, plans and attempts’. The findings highlight the potential of ML to provide precise tools for early identification of at-risk individuals.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. The socio-ecological model (Zollner et al., 2014).

Figure 1

Table 1. Correlations between independent variables and suicide risk (N = 1,703)

Figure 2

Figure 2. Heatmap of correlations between independent variables and suicide risk.

Figure 3

Table 2. Gender differences in key risk factors (N = 1,703)

Figure 4

Figure 3. Mean scores of key risk factors by gender.

Figure 5

Table 3. Random forest model performance metrics

Figure 6

Figure 4. Feature importance scores from the random forest model.

Figure 7

Table 4. Feature importance in predicting suicide risk

Figure 8

Figure 5. ROC curve for the suicide risk prediction model.

Supplementary material: File

Azasu supplementary material 1

Azasu supplementary material
Download Azasu supplementary material 1(File)
File 35.6 KB
Supplementary material: File

Azasu supplementary material 2

Azasu supplementary material
Download Azasu supplementary material 2(File)
File 19.9 KB

Author comment: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR1

Comments

Dear Dr. Galea and Guest Editors,

I am pleased to submit my manuscript titled ‘A Machine Learning Analysis of Socio-Ecological and Psychological Risk Factors for Suicide Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Ghanaian Junior High School Students’ for consideration in the special issue Self-harm and Suicide: A Global Priority of the Cambridge Journal. My work aligns closely with the theme “Changing the Narrative” for World Suicide Prevention Day 2024 and contributes to the growing body of research aimed at addressing the global burden of suicide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

The manuscript addresses key areas of focus outlined in your call for papers, including “the development of culturally appropriate suicide screening tools,” “interventions for adolescents at elevated risk,” or “the role of stigma reduction in suicide prevention efforts”. Drawing on data and insights from a nationally representative study of adolescents in Ghana, this work provides evidence-based recommendations for scalable and cost-effective detection and prediction of suicide risk tailored to resource-limited settings.

In line with the goals of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (UN SDG) 3.4.2 to reduce suicide mortality by one-third by 2030, this research offers innovative approaches to early identification of at-risk populations and highlights practical strategies for implementation in LMICs. It also underscores the importance of addressing the intersectionality of social, cultural, and psychological determinants of suicide, as well as the role of community engagement in reducing stigma and improving mental health outcomes.

I believe that this manuscript will make a valuable contribution to the special issue, offering both theoretical and practical insights to inform policy and practice. I have adhered to the journal’s submission guidelines and confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by any other journal.

Thank you for considering my submission. I look forward to the possibility of contributing to this important special issue and am happy to provide any additional information or clarification if needed.

Sincerely,

Enoch Azasu

Review: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Dear Dr. Azasu,

Thank you for sharing your work—it’s clearly an important contribution, and I appreciate the effort you’ve put into it. I do have a few remarks that I hope will help strengthen your study:

Incentives and Coercion:

Were there any incentives provided to students before the consent process? If not, it would be helpful to explicitly mention this to rule out potential financial coercion.

Additionally, how were students protected from potential coercion by school authorities to participate? Clarifying this would add to the ethical rigor of the study.

Language Considerations:

Did you consider translating the questionnaire into the local language for students who might not be proficient in English? This could ensure greater inclusivity and accuracy in responses.

Education as a Predictor:

Based on previous literature, is education (Y/N) a predictor for the outcomes of interest? If so, focusing your study on students might affect its validity, as the goal is to assess mental health among all adolescents in the country. This point might be worth addressing.

Support for Suicidal Ideation:

For the 18% of students who screened positive for suicidal ideation, was there any immediate support provided? If not, are there any plans underway to address this critical need?

Once again, thank you for your meaningful work. I look forward to hearing your thoughts!

Best regards,

Isaac.

Review: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

I have no conflicts of interests to declare.

Comments

Objective of the Paper

This study investigates the use of machine learning (ML) techniques to analyze psychological factors (e.g., depression, anxiety) and socio-ecological factors (e.g., bullying, parental support) associated with suicide risk among a representative sample of Ghanaian school-going students.

Key Points

• The study contributes valuable knowledge to the limited literature on suicide in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

• The work is highly significant and fills a critical gap, particularly in the emerging research on adolescent suicide in sub-Saharan Africa. It provides important insights into a vulnerable population using novel/emerging methods.

Major Issues and General Comments

• No major concerns.

• The manuscript contains many bullet points. It is recommended to convert these into paragraph format for better readability.

• The manuscript frequently references AI/ML techniques. Since AI methodologies are not used, it is advisable to only refer to using ML techniques.

• The term “suicide” is used broadly throughout the abstract and manuscript. Suicide encompasses various aspects, including suicidal ideation, planning, attempts, self-harm, and death by suicide. It is crucial to specify which aspect is being addressed or use more precise terminology (e.g., suicidal thoughts and behaviors).

Minor Issues

Abstract Clarity

• Clearly specify the aspects of suicide being predicted (e.g., suicidal thoughts and behaviors, self-harm, death by suicide).

• As previously mentioned, avoid implying the use of both AI and ML techniques.

• When discussing “depression, anxiety, and perceived stress,” specify that these are symptoms rather than diagnosed disorders.

Introduction

• Provide citations for the statement: “Adolescents are particularly vulnerable to suicidal ideation due to the interplay of psychosocial stressors, rapid developmental changes, and limited access to mental health resources.”

• Include statistics on suicidal planning and attempts among adolescents in Ghana or similar West African or sub-Saharan African settings, if available.

• Support the statement: “Despite the growing recognition of adolescent suicide as a critical issue, mental health resources in Ghana remain scarce, and traditional approaches to identifying suicide risk often fall short in addressing the multifaceted nature of this problem.”

• Provide a citation for the statement: “At the individual level, factors such as personal experiences of bullying victimization, food insecurity, and emotional distress play a critical role in shaping mental health outcomes.”

• Consider incorporating a visual adaptation of the SEM model to illustrate how it fits into the study’s framework.

Methods

• Convert bullet points into paragraphs for consistency.

• The abstract states that the survey included 1,703 students, while 1,702 students are mentioned on line 54. Ensure consistency in reporting.

• If the study referenced in “The measures used in this study were tested and validated in a prior study conducted by the same research team in 2022 with 800 students from the Greater Accra region” is published, provide a citation. If unpublished, describe its status.

• Clearly list all measurement scales used to assess outcomes (e.g., specify which scale was used to assess anxiety). Provide a brief summary of what each measure entailed within the categories of demographic, mental health, psychosocial factors, and social media/internet use along with response options. For example:

o Depression was assessed using the PHQ-4, an x-item measure where responses range from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day), with scores ≥X indicating moderate to severe depressive symptoms.

o Consider creating an appendix to present the full questions and response options.

• If suicidal ideation, plans, and attempts were assessed separately, clearly define how each was assessed, coded, and prepared for each type of analysis. Do the same if a global WHO CIDI score was used as well. This is important to clarify particularly for logistic regression models which typically involve categorical outcomes.

• Ensure consistent terminology from the introduction onward. Psychological and socio-ecological factors should remain distinct throughout. When reporting findings, avoid lumping them together to prevent confusion. For instance, even in the methods, when discussing measures, consider separating psychological and socio-ecological factors to remain consistent.

• In lines 45-47, expand on the data cleaning process, including the frequency, range, and handling of missing values (e.g., multiple imputation, listwise deletion).

• In lines 49-50, provide a rationale for applying both Random Forest and Logistic Regression models to identify suicide risk factors. Since logistic regression involves categorical outcomes, clearly define response options and how data were coded.

Results

• Convert bullet points into paragraphs.

• Maintain consistency in terminology for psychological and socio-ecological factors. When discussing gender differences, clarify both psychological and socio-ecological findings. Example, you have:

o “Significant gender differences were observed across multiple risk factors. Female students consistently reported higher levels of psychological distress compared to male students.” But what about the socio-ecological findings?

o In Table 2, separate psychological and socio-ecological factors for clarity while keeping them in the same table. Add a row to distinguish between the two categories and explicitly discuss conclusions related to each.

• Although logistic regression is mentioned in the methods, results from these models are not presented. If logistic regression models were conducted, consider including them in an appendix or if they were not used, remove mentions of logistic regression models. If included, compare their performance with Random Forest models.

Discussion

• Convert bullet points into paragraphs.

• Ensure consistent terminology when discussing psychological and socio-ecological factors.

• The limitations of cross-sectional data in causal inference are acknowledged in the discussion; consider mentioning this in the methods section as well, particularly in relation to machine learning analysis and the prediction of suicide risk. Right now, the language is a little ambiguous.

• Discuss the comparative performance of Random Forest and Logistic Regression models (if they were used).

• Discuss the limitations of excluding absent students, those unable to consent due to language barriers, or those with cognitive limitations.

Review: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR4

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The researchers sought to demonstrate that the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning can prove more effective than traditional methods in identifying adolescents at higher risk of suicide using a cohort of teens from a junior high school in Ghana. There is a hefty amount of statistical jargon that is not explained sufficiently and difficult to interpret. Additionally, to someone unfamiliar with AI/ML, it is not clear what the artificial intelligence and machine learning aspects are by definition or what they entail in this context as well as how exactly they are used on the data in a way that adds to the findings already gathered by the surveys that the researchers administered. I would like to thank the authors for their effort and share a series of comments and recommendations for potential improvement of the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

- There is repeated reference to “psychological and socioecological” factors that feels excessive, without much explanation as to what those factors are until further into the introduction.

- Would suggest explaining in this section what exactly artificial intelligence and machine learning mean

- The theoretical framework with the SEM was well-described

METHODS

- The recruitment and logistics of survey administration were overall well-described

- Unclear if the comprehensive safety plan was just for research assistants to recognize distress and refer to other mental health professionals or if there was more individualized planning involved

- What is Python programming language?

- What does “cleaned the data” mean?

- What is the difference between the “training” and “testing” sets?

- What is Random Forest? If this is the machine learning used, I would recommend describing it in much greater detail than what is given here.

RESULTS

- How is “suicide risk” defined? Is it based on the percentages of SI, suicide plans, attempts section? If so would explicitly state this and how the ultimate value of the risk is determined if it is being correlated with the other variables

- Consider combining the two titles below the descriptive statistics section: “correlations between key psychological and socioecological predictors of suicide risk.”

- The formatting within table one for the parental support line appears confusing as the negative symbol is in a line above the values.

- The note at the bottom of table one is not specifically labeled to refer to the double asterisks

- It is unclear what the values in table 2 represent. For example, what does a mean score of 8.2 for depression signify here?

DISCUSSION

- What is the machine learning/predictive models adding to the understanding of suicide risk past what the survey that was administered is already asking the students to identify themselves?

- Is this stating that the results of said surveys should be analyzed by AI rather than by humans and have the system then use the data to identify at-risk youth? Would make this explicitly clear if so and also who would be examining the findings of the AI programming in what is proposed as resource-scarce areas.

- The “practical implications” section repeats much of the assertions already made in the discussion and feels more like a concluding section. Would consider either condensing this or making this the “conclusion” section of the paper.

- Other limitations could include the lack of more detailed demographics including any existing other psychiatric comorbities, LGBTQ+ status, and substance use, which could all affect suicide risk especially in adolescents.

Recommendation: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R0/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R1/PR7

Comments

Subject: Revision Submission for GMH-2025-0003 – Response to Editor

Dear Dr. Galea,

Thank you for the opportunity to revise my manuscript entitled “A Machine Learning Analysis of Socio-Ecological and Psychological Risk Factors for Suicide Among a Nationally Representative Sample of Ghanaian Junior High School Students” (GMH-2025-0003) for Cambridge Prisms: Global Mental Health. I appreciate the thoughtful feedback provided by the reviewers and am pleased to submit my revised manuscript, addressing each comment as detailed in the accompanying response document.

I have completed the revisions, incorporating the suggested major changes, and have included both clean and tracked changes versions of the manuscript for your review. Additionally, I have added the requested impact statement to highlight the significance of my findings. However, regarding the graphical abstract, I regret to inform you that I am not able to include a graphical abstract at this time. I would greatly appreciate any guidance or support the journal can provide in this regard.

Thank you once again for considering my work. I look forward to your feedback and am eager to ensure my submission meets the journal’s standards.

Sincerely,

Dr. Enoch Azasu

Review: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments for the Author

Objective of the Paper

This study investigates the application of machine learning (ML) techniques to examine psychological (e.g., depression, anxiety) and socio-ecological (e.g., bullying, parental support) factors associated with suicide risk among a representative sample of school-going students in Ghana.

Key Points

• This study contributes valuable insights to the limited literature on suicide in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

• The work addresses a critical gap, particularly in the emerging research on adolescent suicide in sub-Saharan Africa, and leverages novel analytical methods to explore this issue in a vulnerable population.

Major Issues and General Comments

• No major concerns. This is a timely and important paper that makes a meaningful contribution.

Minor Issues and Specific Suggestions

Abstract Clarity

• As previously suggested, please clearly specify what aspect(s) of suicide were assessed (e.g., suicide risk, suicidal thoughts, behaviors, etc). If space allows, briefly mention how suicide risk was measured. Otherwise, the abstract reads well.

Introduction

• Thank you for incorporating the SEM framework. If the figure used was adapted or taken from another source, please cite both the original developer of the model—Urie Bronfenbrenner—and the source of the visual.

Methods

• Consider reducing the use of bullet points, especially in the inclusion/exclusion section, by integrating the content into narrative paragraphs for better readability.

• In lines 19–27: Thank you for the revisions—this section is much clearer. One area that still needs clarification is how variables were scored and coded. Many of the measures listed in the appendix are based on Likert scales; please specify whether these were analyzed as continuous variables or transformed into categorical or binary variables. For the suicidal behavior variable based on the WHOCIDI, it is described as “nominal (Yes or No),” but this appears to be binary. “Binary” would be a more precise term. Additionally, please clarify whether individual WHOCIDI items (e.g., ideation, plan, attempt) were modeled separately or combined into a single outcome. If combined, indicate the criteria used to code a “Yes” response. You touch on this in the data analysis section, but consider moving it up and expanding a bit for clarity.

• In the sentence, “The independent variables were depression symptoms, anxiety symptoms, perceived stress, social media addiction, trauma exposure, and financial hardship,” consider labeling which variables are psychological versus socio-ecological to align with your conceptual framework.

• In lines 22–27: Thank you for explaining your handling of missing data. To enhance transparency and allow readers to assess potential bias or information loss, please report the proportion of missingness (e.g., <5%, 10%, etc.) before listwise deletion was applied.

Results

• Although logistic regression is mentioned in the methods, the corresponding results are not presented. If you prefer not to include them in the main text, consider briefly justifying why the random forest results are prioritized and referring readers to the appendix for the logistic regression outputs. As of right now, a reader would expect to see both models in the results section.

Discussion

• This section is well written and clearly interprets the results. No changes needed here—thank you!

Overall

Excellent work incorporating previous feedback! This is a strong and impactful paper, and I look forward to seeing the final version!

Recommendation: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for addressing all of my previous comments—this manuscript is much improved and ready to move forward. I have just a few very minor edits to consider:

1. In the abstract (line 45), please add parentheses around “i.e. ideation, plan and attempts.”

2. In the second page of the abstract (in the conclusion section, line 10), similarly enclose “i.e. ideation, plan and attempts.” in parentheses.

3. Under “Survey Administration” (page 10) (lines 40–47), I suggest rephrasing the list of independent variables for clarity. For example:

“The independent variables included psychological factors such as depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and socio‐ecological factors such as perceived stress, social media addiction, trauma exposure, and financial hardship (see Appendix 1 for measurement details, scoring levels, and citations).”

4. In the same section (lines 38–40), change “The scoring was nominal (Yes or No)” to “The scoring was binary (Yes or No).”

Thank you again for your careful revisions. I’m happy to see this paper progressing and have no further concerns.

Recommendation: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R3/PR15

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R3/PR16

Comments

Thank you for addressing the reviewers' concerns. This is important work.

Decision: Using a machine learning analysis of socio-ecological and psychological factors to predict suicide risk among a nationally representative sample of Ghanaian adolescents — R3/PR17

Comments

No accompanying comment.