Dataset Information

Effect of assertive outreach after suicide attempt in the AID (assertive intervention for deliberate self harm) trial: randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess whether an assertive outreach intervention after suicide attempt could reduce the frequency of subsequent suicidal acts, compared with standard treatment.

Design

Randomised, parallel group, superiority trial with blinded outcome assessment.

Setting

Outpatient intervention at one location at Copenhagen University Hospital, Denmark.

Participants

Patients older than 12 years admitted to regional hospitals in Copenhagen with a suicide attempt within the past 14 days. We excluded patients diagnosed with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and patients living in institutions.

Intervention

Case management through assertive outreach that provided crisis intervention and flexible problem solving. This approach incorporated motivational support and actively assisted patients to scheduled appointments to improve adherence with after-treatment as an add on to standard treatment.

Main outcome

Repeated suicide attempt and death by suicide, recorded in medical records and death register at 1-year follow-up.

Results

243 patients were included. During 12 months of follow-up, 20/123 (16%) patients in the intervention group had been registered in hospital records with subsequent suicide attempt, compared with 13/120 (11%) in the control group (odds ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 3.38; P=0.22). By contrast, self reported data on new events showed 11/95 (12%) in the intervention group versus 13/74 (18%) in the control group (0.61, 0.26 to 1.46; P=0.27). By imputing missing data on the selfreported outcomes, we estimated 15/123 (12%) events in the intervention group and 23/120 (19%) in the control group (0.69, 0.34 to 1.43; P=0.32).

Conclusion

Assertive outreach showed no significant effect on subsequent suicide attempt. The difference in rates of events between register data and self reported data could indicate detection bias.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00700089.

SUBMITTER: Morthorst B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3425442 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe investigated whether a volitional helpsheet (VHS), a brief psychological intervention, could reduce repeat self-harm in the 6 months following a suicide attempt.MethodsWe did a prospective, single-site, randomised controlled trial. Patients admitted to a hospital in Edinburgh, UK, after a suicide attempt were deemed eligible for the study if they were over the age of 16 years, had a self-reported history of self-harm, were fluent in English, were medically fit to interview, and were not participating in other research studies within the hospital. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via web-based randomisation, to receive either VHS plus usual treatment (intervention group) or only treatment as usual (control group). Randomisation was stratified by sex and self-reported past self-harm history. The Information Services Division of the National Health Service (NHS-ISD) staff and those extracting data from medical notes were masked to the study group the participant was allocated to. Clinical staff working within the hospital were also masked to participants' randomisation status. There were three primary outcomes: the proportion of paticipants who re-presented to hospital with self-harm during the 6-month follow-up period; the number of times a participant re-presented to hospital with self-harm during the 6-month follow-up period; and cost-effectiveness of the VHS as measured by estimated incremental cost per self-harm event averted. Primary outcomes were analysed in all randomised patients. Follow-up data collection was extracted from the Information Services Division of the NHS and from patient medical records. The trial is registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Registry, number ISRCTN99488269.FindingsBetween May 9, 2012, and Feb 24, 2014, we assessed 1308 people for eligibility. Of these, 259 patients were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 259 to the control group. We obtained complete follow-up data on 512 (99%) of 518 patients (five participants were lost to follow-up in the intervention group and one in the control group). 11 patients assigned to the intervention group did not complete the VHS in hospital. Overall, the intervention did not affect the number of people who re-presented with self-harm (67 [26%] of 254 patients in the intervention group vs 71 [28%] of 258 patients in the control group, odds ratio [OR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·58-1·39, p=0·63). The intervention had no effect on the number of re-presentations per patient (mean 0·67 [SD 2·55] re-presentations for the intervention group vs 0·85 [2·79] for the control group, incident rate ratio [IRR] 1·65, 95% CI 0·74-3·67, p=0·21). Mean total costs per person for NHS hospital services in the VHS intervention group over the 6 months were £513 versus £561 in the control group but this difference was not significant (95% CI-£353 to £257, p=0·76). Three patients died by suicide in the 6 months following their index suicide attempt (one in the intervention group and two in the control group). There were no reported unintended effects or adverse events in either group.InterpretationFor the primary outcomes, there were no significant differences between groups. Although the VHS had no overall effect, post-hoc analyses suggest VHS might be effective in reducing the number of self-harm repetitions following a suicide attempt in people who complete the helpsheet and who have been previously admitted to hospital with self-harm. This is the first study to investigate the usefulness of the VHS to reduce self-harm among those who have attempted suicide. These subgroup findings require replication. The potential use of the VHS in those who self-harm for different motives requires further exploration.FundingChief Scientist Office (CZH/4/704).

Project description:IntroductionEffective, brief, low-cost interventions for suicide attempt survivors are essential to saving lives and achieving the goals of the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention and Zero Suicide. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of the Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP) in averting suicide reattempts in the United States healthcare system, its psychological mechanisms as predicted by the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, and the potential implementation costs, barriers and facilitators for delivering it.Methods and analysisThis study is a hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation randomised controlled trial (RCT). ASSIP is delivered at three outpatient mental healthcare clinics in New York State. Participant referral sites include three local hospitals with inpatient and comprehensive psychiatric emergency services, and outpatient mental health clinics. Participants include 400 adults who have had a recent suicide attempt. All are randomised to 'Zero Suicide-Usual Care plus ASSIP' or 'Zero Suicide-Usual Care'. Randomisation is stratified by sex and whether the index attempt is a first suicide attempt or not. Participants complete assessments at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3, 6, 12 and, 18 months. The primary outcome is the time from randomisation to the first suicide reattempt. Prior to the RCT, a 23-person open trial took place, in which 13 participants received 'Zero Suicide-Usual Care plus ASSIP' and 14 completed the first follow-up time point.Ethics and disseminationThis study is overseen by the University of Rochester, with single Institutional Review Board (#3353) reliance agreements from Nathan Kline Institute (#1561697) and SUNY Upstate Medical University (#1647538). It has an established Data and Safety Monitoring Board. Results will be published in peer-reviewed academic journals, presented at scientific conferences, and communicated to referral organisations. Clinics considering ASSIP may use a stakeholder report generated by this study, including incremental cost-effectiveness data from the provider point of view.Trial registration numberNCT03894462.

Project description:BackgroundSuicide remains the 10th-ranked most frequent cause of death in the United States, accounting for over 40,000 deaths per year. Nonfatal suicide attempts lead to over 200,000 hospitalizations and 600,000 emergency department visits annually. Recent evidence indicates that responses to the commonly used Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ9) can identify outpatients who are at risk of suicide attempt and suicide death and that specific psychotherapy or Care Management programs can prevent suicide attempts in high-risk patients. Motivated by these developments, the NIMH-funded Mental Health Research Network has undertaken a multisite trial of two outreach programs to prevent suicide attempts among outpatients identified by routinely administered PHQ9 questionnaires.Methods/designOutpatients who are at risk of suicide attempt are automatically identified using data from electronic health records (EHRs). Following a modified Zelen design, all those identified are assigned to continued usual care (i.e., no contact) or to be offered one of two population-based outreach programs. A Care Management intervention includes systematic outreach to assess suicide risk, EHR-based tools to implement risk-based care pathways, and care management to facilitate recommended follow-up. A Skills Training intervention includes interactive online training in Dialectical Behavior Therapy skills, supported by reminder and reinforcement messages from a skills coach. Each intervention supplements, rather than replaces, usual care; participants may receive any other services normally available. Interventions are delivered primarily by secure messaging through EHR patient portals. Suicide attempts and deaths following randomization are identified using state vital statistics data and health system EHR and insurance claim data. Primary evaluation will compare risk of suicide attempt or death over 18 months according to the initial assignment, regardless of intervention participation. Recruitment is underway in three health systems (Group Health Cooperative, HealthPartners, and Kaiser Permanente Colorado). Over 2500 participants have been randomized as of 1 March 2016, with enrollment averaging approximately 100 per week.DiscussionAssessing the effectiveness of population-based suicide prevention requires adherence to the principles of pragmatic trials: population-based enrollment, accepting variable treatment participation, assessing outcomes using health record data, and analyses based on intent-to-treat.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov registration # NCT02326883 , registered on 23 December 2014.

Project description:BackgroundEmpirical evidence supporting the distinction between suicide attempt (SA) and non-suicidal self-harm (NSSH) is lacking. Although NSSH is a risk factor for SA, we do not currently know whether these behaviours lie on a continuum of severity, or whether they are discrete outcomes with different aetiologies. We conducted this exploratory genetic epidemiology study to investigate this issue further.MethodsWe explored the extent of genetic overlap between NSSH and SA in a large, richly-phenotyped cohort (the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children; N = 4959), utilising individual-level genetic and phenotypic data to conduct analyses of genome-wide complex traits and polygenic risk scores (PRS).ResultsThe single nucleotide polymorphism heritability of NSSH was estimated to be 13% (SE 0.07) and that of SA to be 0% (SE 0.07). Of the traits investigated, NSSH was most strongly correlated with higher IQ (rG = 0.31, SE = 0.22), there was little evidence of high genetic correlation between NSSH and SA (rG = - 0.1, SE = 0.54), likely due to the low heritability estimate for SA. The PRS for depression differentiated between those with NSSH and SA in multinomial regression. The optimal PRS prediction model for SA (Nagelkerke R2 0.022, p < 0.001) included ADHD, depression, income, anorexia and neuroticism and explained more variance than the optimal prediction model for NSSH (Nagelkerke R2 0.010, p < 0.001) which included ADHD, alcohol consumption, autism spectrum conditions, depression, IQ, neuroticism and suicide attempt.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that SA does not have a large genetic component, and that although NSSH and SA are not discrete outcomes there appears to be little genetic overlap between the two. The relatively small sample size and resulting low heritability estimate for SA was a limitation of the study. Combined with low heritability estimates, this implies that family or population structures in SA GWASs may contribute to signals detected.

Project description:BackgroundLesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people may be at higher risk of mental disorders than heterosexual people.MethodWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicide, suicidal ideation and deliberate self harm in LGB people. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library Database, the Web of Knowledge, the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, the Campbell Collaboration and grey literature databases for articles published January 1966 to April 2005. We also used Google and Google Scholar and contacted authors where necessary. We searched all terms related to homosexual, lesbian and bisexual people and all terms related to mental disorders, suicide, and deliberate self harm. We included papers on population based studies which contained concurrent heterosexual comparison groups and valid definition of sexual orientation and mental health outcomes.ResultsOf 13706 papers identified, 476 were initially selected and 28 (25 studies) met inclusion criteria. Only one study met all our four quality criteria and seven met three of these criteria. Data was extracted on 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non heterosexual people. Meta-analyses revealed a two fold excess in suicide attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual people [pooled risk ratio for lifetime risk 2.47 (CI 1.87, 3.28)]. The risk for depression and anxiety disorders (over a period of 12 months or a lifetime) on meta-analyses were at least 1.5 times higher in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (RR range 1.54-2.58) and alcohol and other substance dependence over 12 months was also 1.5 times higher (RR range 1.51-4.00). Results were similar in both sexes but meta analyses revealed that lesbian and bisexual women were particularly at risk of substance dependence (alcohol 12 months: RR 4.00, CI 2.85, 5.61; drug dependence: RR 3.50, CI 1.87, 6.53; any substance use disorder RR 3.42, CI 1.97-5.92), while lifetime prevalence of suicide attempt was especially high in gay and bisexual men (RR 4.28, CI 2.32, 7.88).ConclusionLGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people.

Project description:BackgroundDeliberate self-harm (DSH) along with old age, physical disability, and low socioeconomic status are well-known contributors to suicide-related deaths. In recent years, South Korea has the highest suicide death rate among all Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Owing to the difficulty of accessing data of individuals with DSH behavior who died by suicide, the factors associated with suicide death in these high-risk individuals have not been sufficiently explored. There have been conflicting findings with regard to the relationship between previous psychiatric visits and suicidal death.ObjectiveWe aimed to address the following 3 questions: Are there considerable differences in demographics, socioeconomic status, and clinical features in individuals who received psychiatric diagnosis (either before DSH or after DSH event) and those who did not? Does receiving a psychiatric diagnosis from the Department of Psychiatry, as opposed to other departments, affect survival? and Which factors related to DSH contribute to deaths by suicide?MethodsWe used the Korean National Health Insurance Service Database to design a cohort of 5640 individuals (3067/5640, 54.38% women) who visited the hospital for DSH (International Classification of Diseases codes X60-X84) between 2002 and 2020. We analyzed whether there were significant differences among subgroups of individuals with DSH behavior based on psychiatric diagnosis status (whether they had received a psychiatric diagnosis, either before or after the DSH event) and the department from which they had received the psychiatric diagnosis. Another main outcome of the study was death by suicide. Cox regression models yielded hazard ratios (HRs) for suicide risk. Patterns were plotted using Kaplan-Meier survival curves.ResultsThere were significant differences in all factors including demographic, health-related, socioeconomic, and survival variables among the groups that were classified according to psychiatric diagnosis status (P<.001). The group that did not receive a psychiatric diagnosis had the lowest survival rate (867/1064, 81.48%). Analysis drawn using different departments from where the individual had received a psychiatric diagnosis showed statistically significant differences in all features of interest (P<.001). The group that had received psychiatric diagnoses from the Department of Psychiatry had the highest survival rate (888/951, 93.4%). These findings were confirmed using the Kaplan-Meier survival curves (P<.001). The severity of DSH (HR 4.31, 95% CI 3.55-5.26) was the most significant contributor to suicide death, followed by psychiatric diagnosis status (HR 1.84, 95% CI 1.47-2.30).ConclusionsReceiving psychiatric assessment from a health care professional, especially a psychiatrist, reduces suicide death in individuals who had deliberately harmed themselves before. The key characteristics of individuals with DSH behavior who die by suicide are male sex, middle age, comorbid physical disabilities, and higher socioeconomic status.

Project description:BackgroundSuicide prevention is a national priority for the UK government. Autistic people are at greater risk of experiencing self-harm and suicidal thoughts and behaviours than the general population. Safety plans are widely used in suicide prevention but have not yet been designed with and for autistic people. We developed the first safety plan specifically targeting suicidality in autistic adults: the Autism Adapted Safety Plan (AASP). It consists of a prioritised list of hierarchical steps that can be used prior to or during a crisis to mitigate risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour. This is a pilot study that aims to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the AASPs and the research processes, including the response rates, potential barriers and reach of AASPs, methods of recruitment, what comprises usual care, and economic evaluation methods/tools.MethodsThis is an external pilot randomised controlled trial of a suicide prevention tool aimed at mitigating the risk of self-harm and suicidal behaviour in autistic adults: AASPs. Participants will be assessed at baseline and followed up 1 month and 6 months later. Assessments include questions about self-harm, suicidality, service use, and their experience of the AASP/taking part in the study. Autistic adults who have a clinical autism diagnosis and self-reported history of self-harm, suicidal thoughts, or suicidal behaviours within the last 6 months will be invited to take part in the study. Informed consent will be obtained. Participants will be recruited via community and third sector services (including community settings, autism charities, and mental health charities). They may also "self-refer" into the study through social media recruitment and word of mouth. Ninety participants will be randomised to either develop an AASP or receive their usual care in a 1:1 ratio.DiscussionThe present study will provide an evaluation of the suitability of the processes that would be undertaken in a larger definitive study, including recruitment, randomisation, methods, questionnaires, outcome measures, treatment, and follow-up assessments.Trial registrationISRCTN70594445, Protocol v4: 8/2/22.

Project description:Improving physical healthcare to reduce premature mortality in people with SMI (Serious Mental Illness) is a priority for ELFT (East London NHS Foundation Trust) and NHS England. It is well know that people with schizophrenia have a life expectancy which is approximately 20% shorter than that of the general population and a substantial mortality difference exists between people with schizophrenia and the general community.[1-2] Among other risk factors, such as poor diet, physical inactivity, and high rates of smoking, the iatrogenic effects of anti-psychotic medications have been found to increase the risk of metabolic syndrome. This can easily be detected through regular monitoring. Through this project, it was our aim to improve the physical health monitoring of City & Hackney Assertive Outreach Service (AOS) patients with a view to decrease mortality rate, increase life expectancy, increase the quality of life, and reduce harm from medication. This was done using quality improvement methods, including several change ideas, each of which started sequentially over the course of a nine month period from November 2014. Following QI methodology, this utilised cycles of iterative learning using PDSA methods and was supported by the Trust's extensive programme of quality improvement, including training provided by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement. The project involved setting a specific aim which was improving the physical health monitoring of AOS patients to 80% by July 2015 and for our patients to have physical health checks (blood tests, weight, ECG, BP) as a minimum annually. From baseline measurements of between 50-75%, we reached our target of 80% for weight, BP and blood tests monitoring, with 89%, 91%, and 84% achieved respectively by July 2015. Further progress still needs to be made on ECGs, with 77% achieved by July 2015, although the monitoring of ECG nearly doubled from 39% in November 2014 to 77% in July 2015. This project demonstrated that effective leadership, collaborative team work, embedding the project in our daily practice, generating local solutions, and improved communication between primary and secondary care can increase the physical health monitoring of this complex and challenging patient group. The team continues to identify other areas for change that may lead to further improvement in the physical health monitoring of AOS patients while making sure that the improvement is sustained.