Dataset Information

Suicide Risk Screening and Suicide Prevention in Patients With Cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Suicide rates are up to 4 times greater in cancer compared with the general population, yet best practices for institutional suicide prevention are unknown. The objective of this study was to examine the association between suicide risk screening (SRS), clinician response, and suicide mortality at a comprehensive cancer treatment center.

Methods

We conducted a naturalistic, retrospective cohort study of patients attending the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, where routine screening for suicidal intent within the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART-SRS) was implemented in 2010. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to evaluate the impact of DART-SRS completion on suicide mortality from 2005 to 2014. Chart audits were conducted for clinician response to suicidality, and crude suicide rates over the study period were analyzed. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

Results

Among 78 650 cancer patients, 89 (0.1%) died by suicide, of whom only 4 (4.5%) had completed DART-SRS. Among DART-SRS completers (n = 14 517), 69 (0.5%) reported suicidal intent, none of whom died by suicide. DART-SRS completion was associated with increased clinician response to suicidality (17.4% vs 6.7%, P = .04), more psychosocial service usage (30.5% vs 18.3%, P < .001), and lower suicide mortality (hazard ratio = 0.29, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.31). Crude suicide rates at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre were lower in patients whose first contact year was after DART-SRS implementation.

Conclusion

DART-SRS completion is associated with lower suicide mortality and increased access to psychosocial care, but patients who did not complete DART-SRS were at highest suicide risk. Further research is needed to identify mechanisms to ensure psychosocial and suicidality assessment in cancer patients who do not complete SRS.

SUBMITTER: Gascon B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8358838 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Unselected population-based personalised ovarian cancer (OC) risk assessment combining genetic/epidemiology/hormonal data has not previously been undertaken. We aimed to perform a feasibility study of OC risk stratification of general population women using a personalised OC risk tool followed by risk management. Volunteers were recruited through London primary care networks. women ≥18 years. prior ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer, previous genetic testing for OC genes. Participants accessed an online/web-based decision aid along with optional telephone helpline use. Consenting individuals completed risk assessment and underwent genetic testing (BRCA1/BRCA2/RAD51C/RAD51D/BRIP1, OC susceptibility single-nucleotide polymorphisms). A validated OC risk prediction algorithm provided a personalised OC risk estimate using genetic/lifestyle/hormonal OC risk factors. Population genetic testing (PGT)/OC risk stratification uptake/acceptability, satisfaction, decision aid/telephone helpline use, psychological health and quality of life were assessed using validated/customised questionnaires over six months. Linear-mixed models/contrast tests analysed impact on study outcomes. feasibility/acceptability, uptake, decision aid/telephone helpline use, satisfaction/regret, and impact on psychological health/quality of life. In total, 123 volunteers (mean age = 48.5 (SD = 15.4) years) used the decision aid, 105 (85%) consented. None fulfilled NHS genetic testing clinical criteria. OC risk stratification revealed 1/103 at ≥10% (high), 0/103 at ≥5%-<10% (intermediate), and 100/103 at <5% (low) lifetime OC risk. Decision aid satisfaction was 92.2%. The telephone helpline use rate was 13% and the questionnaire response rate at six months was 75%. Contrast tests indicated that overall depression (p = 0.30), anxiety (p = 0.10), quality-of-life (p = 0.99), and distress (p = 0.25) levels did not jointly change, while OC worry (p = 0.021) and general cancer risk perception (p = 0.015) decreased over six months. In total, 85.5-98.7% were satisfied with their decision. Findings suggest population-based personalised OC risk stratification is feasible and acceptable, has high satisfaction, reduces cancer worry/risk perception, and does not negatively impact psychological health/quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionThe U.S. Army developed a new tool called the Behavioral Health Readiness and Suicide Risk Reduction Review (R4) for suicide prevention. A 12-month evaluation study with the primary objective of testing the hypothesis (H1) that Army units receiving R4 would demonstrate improved outcomes in suicidal-behavior measures following the intervention, relative to control, was then conducted. The results of analyses to answer H1 are herein presented.Materials and methodsThe R4 intervention (R4-tools/instructions/orientation) evaluation study, Institutional Review Board approved and conducted in May 2019-June 2020, drew samples from two U.S. Army divisions and employed a repeated measurement in pre-/post-quasi-experimental design, including a nonequivalent, but comparable, business-as-usual control. Intervention effectiveness was evaluated using self-report responses to suicide-related measures (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised/total-suicide behaviors/ideations/plans/attempts/non-suicidal self-injuries) at 6-/12-month intervals. Analyses examined baseline to follow-up linked and cross-sectional cohorts, incidence/prevalence, and intervention higher-/lower-use R4 subanalyses.ResultsBoth divisions demonstrated favorable in-study reductions in total-suicide burden, with relatively equivalent trends for total-suicide behaviors, total-suicide risk (Suicide Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised), suicidal ideations, and non-suicidal self-injuries. Although both demonstrated reductions in suicide plans, the control showed a more robust trend. Neither division demonstrated a significant reduction in suicide attempts, but subgroup analyses showed a significant reduction in pre-coronavirus disease 2019-attempt incidence among those with higher-use R4 relative to control.ConclusionsThere is no evidence of harm associated with the R4 intervention. R4 effectiveness as a function of R4 itself requires confirmatory study. R4 is judged an improvement (no evidence of harm + weak evidence of effectiveness) over the status quo (no safety data or effectiveness studies) with regard to tool-based decision-making support for suicide prevention in the U.S. Army.