scholarly journals Risk Assessment on Suicide Death and Attempt among Chinese Rural Youths Aged 15–34 Years

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (24) ◽  
pp. 13362
Author(s):  
Long Sun ◽  
Jie Zhang ◽  
Dorian A. Lamis ◽  
Yifan Wang
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Attempt ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Roc Curves ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Attempters ◽  
Suicide Death ◽  
Community Residents

Background: Although many suicide risk assessment tools are available in the world, their validity is not adequately assessed. In this study, we aimed to develop and evaluate a suicide risk assessment model among Chinese rural youths aged 15–34 years. Method: Subjects were 373 suicide deaths and 507 suicide attempters aged 15–34 years in three Chinese provinces (Shandong, Liaoning, and Hunan). Information about the community residents was also collected as the control groups. Social-demographic, social and psychological variables were examined for the suicides, suicide attempters, and community residents. Logistic regressions based on subjects from Shandong and Liaoning provinces were conducted to establish the suicide risk assessment models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were drawn, and area under the ROC curves (AUC) were calculated to show how well the models separated the group being tested into those with and without suicide attempt or suicide. Results: The assessment model for suicide death included education years (OR = 0.773, p < 0.001), agricultural worker (OR = 2.091, p < 0.05), physical health (OR = 0.445, p < 0.05), family suicide history (OR = 6.858, p < 0.001), negative life events (OR = 1.340, p < 0.001), hopelessness (OR = 1.171, p < 0.001), impulsivity (OR = 1.151, p < 0.001), and mental disorder (OR = 8.384, p < 0.001). All these factors were also supported in the assessment model for suicide attempt, with an extension of very poor economic status (OR = 1.941, p < 0.01) and social interaction (OR = 0.855, p < 0.001). The AUC was 0.950 and 0.857 for the sample used to establish the assessment models of suicide death and attempt, respectively. The AUC was 0.967 and 0.942 for the sample used to verify the established assessment models of suicide death and attempt, respectively. Conclusions: Compared with some other assessment tools, the models for suicide death and attempt in the current study performed well among Chinese rural youths aged 15–34 years. A reliable suicide risk assessment approach, which includes multiple risk factors, should be evaluated in various cultures and populations.

Suicide risk assessment in a large public mental health service: do suicide risk classifications identify those at risk?

2021 ◽  
pp. 103985622098403
Author(s):  
Marianne Wyder ◽  
Manaan Kar Ray ◽  
Samara Russell ◽  
Kieran Kinsella ◽  
David Crompton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Public Mental Health ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Public Mental Health Service ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools

Introduction: Risk assessment tools are routinely used to identify patients at high risk. There is increasing evidence that these tools may not be sufficiently accurate to determine the risk of suicide of people, particularly those being treated in community mental health settings. Methods: An outcome analysis for case serials of people who died by suicide between January 2014 and December 2016 and had contact with a public mental health service within 31 days prior to their death. Results: Of the 68 people who had contact, 70.5% had a formal risk assessment. Seventy-five per cent were classified as low risk of suicide. None were identified as being at high risk. While individual risk factors were identified, these did not allow to differentiate between patients classified as low or medium. Discussion: Risk categorisation contributes little to patient safety. Given the dynamic nature of suicide risk, a risk assessment should focus on modifiable risk factors and safety planning rather than risk prediction. Conclusion: The prediction value of suicide risk assessment tools is limited. The risk classifications of high, medium or low could become the basis of denying necessary treatment to many and delivering unnecessary treatment to some and should not be used for care allocation.

Improving Risk Assessment with Suicidal Patients

Crisis ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Nelson ◽  
Megan Johnston ◽  
Amresh Shrivastava
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Function Analysis ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Admission Status ◽  
Suicidal Patients ◽  
New Strategies

Background: Although a number of suicide-risk assessment tools are available to clinicians, the high levels of suicide still evident in society suggest a clear need for new strategies in order to facilitate the prevention of suicidal behaviors. Aims: The present study examined the utilization of a new structured clinical interview called the Scale for Impact of Suicidality Management, Assessment, and Planning of Care (SIS-MAP). Methods: SIS-MAP ratings were obtained from a group of incoming psychiatric patients over a 6-month period at Regional Mental Health Care, St. Thomas, Canada. Results: A canonical discriminant function analysis resulted in a total 74.0% of original grouped cases correctly classified based on admission status (admitted or not; Wilks λ = .749, p < .001). The specificity of the scale was 78.1%, while the sensitivity of the scale was 66.7%. Additionally, mean total scores on the scale were used to establish clinical cutoffs to facilitate future level of care decisions. Conclusions: Preliminary analysis suggests the SIS-MAP is a valid and reliable tool for determining the level of psychiatric care needed for adults with suicidal ideation.

The death-implicit association test and suicide attempts: a systematic review and meta-analysis of discriminative and prospective utility

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Maya N. Sohn ◽  
Carly A. McMorris ◽  
Signe Bray ◽  
Alexander McGirr
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Suicide Attempt ◽  
Suicidal Behaviour ◽  
Implicit Association Test ◽  
Suicide Risk ◽  
Suicide Attempts ◽  
Association Test ◽  
Implicit Association ◽  
Suicide Risk Assessment ◽  
History Of

Abstract Suicide risk assessment involves integrating patient disclosure of suicidal ideation and non-specific risk factors such as family history, past suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric symptoms. A death version of the implicit association test (D-IAT) has been developed to provide an objective measure of the degree to which the self is affiliated with life or death. However, this has inconsistently been associated with past and future suicidal behaviour. Here, we systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the literature examining the D-IAT and suicide attempts. We searched psychINFO, Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) from inception until 9 February 2021 to identify publications reporting D-IAT scores and suicide attempts (PROSPERO; CRD42020194394). Using random-effects models, we calculated standardized mean differences (SMD) and odds ratios (ORs) for retrospective suicide attempts. We then calculated ORs for future suicide attempts. ORs were dichotomized using a cutoff of zero representing equipoise between self-association with life and death. Eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria (n = 9551). The pooled SMD revealed higher D-IAT scores in individuals with a history of suicide attempt (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.35); however, subgroup analyses demonstrated heterogeneity with acute care settings having lower effect sizes than community settings. Dichotomized D-IAT scores discriminated those with a history of suicide attempt from those without (OR 1.38 95% CI 1.01 to 1.89) and predicted suicide attempt over a six-month follow-up period (OR 2.99 95% CI 1.45 to 6.18; six studies, n = 781). The D-IAT may have a supplementary role in suicide risk assessment; however, determination of acute suicide risk and related clinical decisions should not be based solely on D-IAT performance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document