Preventing Self-harm and Reducing Suicidal Ideation Through an Expedited Regular Supportive Psychotherapy and assertive Case Management – Protocol for a Three-arm Partial Randomised Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
aim To conduct a three-arm partial randomised controlled trail to evaluate the effectiveness of expedited regular supportive psychotherapy and assertive case management for patients presenting with suicidal ideation or self-harm to the emergency department (ED). Hypothesis we expect expedited regular supportive psychotherapy plus assertive case management will reduce the suicidality and/or suicidal behaviour in patients by at least 20% at 4 weeks compared to patients receiving only assertive case management or routine care and these differences will be sustained at 6 months. Methods This will be a longitudinal, prospective, three-arm controlled single-rater-blinded partial randomized clinical trial with a recruitment period of 12 months and an observation period of 6 months for each participant. Patients in the intervention group will receive regular face-to-face or over the phone brief supportive psychotherapy during weekdays following presentation to the ED with suicidal ideation or self-harm until patients are actively enrolled in regular community mental health services with active case management by the therapist. Patients in the control and the assertive outreach arms will each receive the usual follow-up services offered routinely to regular patients and assertive outreach patients respectively who present to the ED with suicidal ideation or self-harm. Results Recruitment will commence in February 2016 and we expect the results of the study to be available by September 2017. Conclusion If our hypothesis is proved correct, our intervention will be a new model for caring for patients with self-harm and suicidal ideation and is expected to reduce suicide rates. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.014 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".