Safety Planning Interventions for Suicide Prevention in Children and Adolescents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Suicide ideation and suicide-related behavior (eg, suicide attempts) are increasingly prevalent among adolescents. Evidence supports safety planning interventions for adults at risk for suicide; the effectiveness for adolescents is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of safety planning as a standalone intervention for adolescents with suicide ideation and/or suicide-related behavior. Data Sources: Ovid MEDLINE, OVID PsycINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, and Scopus (Elsevier) from January 1, 2008, to March 26, 2024. Study Selection: Included were all studies that examined safety planning as a standalone treatment for adolescents and assessed suicide ideation, suicide-related behavior including suicide attempts, and/or re-presentations to health care settings. Included were peer-reviewed studies evaluating intervention effectiveness or efficacy, with or without a control condition. Nonempirical studies, gray literature, and studies not available in English were excluded. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality assessment independently. Meta-analytic random-effects models were used to calculate effect size estimates. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tools. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcomes planned for extraction were suicide ideation, suicide-related behavior (eg, attempts; planning with intent to act), and re-presentation to health care settings (ie, emergency department visit; inpatient admission) during the follow-up period. Results: Ten studies including 1002 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.0 [0.4] years; 76.0% female) met inclusion criteria; 5 were included (n = 619) in the meta-analysis. There was no significant association between safety planning interventions and suicide ideation (Hedges g = 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.21), behavior (Hedges g = -0.09; 95% CI, -0.20 to 0.02), attempts (risk ratio [RR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.12-8.88) or suicide-related re-presentation (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.29-3.35) at follow-up. Risk of bias for the majority of studies was moderate to high. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found limited research evaluating safety planning with adolescents. Although available data do not support safety planning as a standalone treatment for reducing suicide-related outcomes among children and adolescents, well-powered studies are needed to address this common intervention for suicide prevention in adolescents.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».