Effectiveness of Suicide Safety Planning Interventions: A Systematic Review Informing Occupational Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Suicide safety planning (SSP) is a suicide prevention approach that involves developing a collaborative plan between a service provider such as an occupational therapist and a person who is at risk of suicide. Purpose. To synthesize effectiveness studies on SSP. Method. Using the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, we conducted a systematic review of effectiveness studies including a: (1) title and abstract screening; (2) full-text review; (3) critical appraisal; and (4) narrative synthesis. Findings. We included 22 studies. Critical appraisal scores ranged from 38.5 to 92.3 (m = 63.7). The types of interventions included were: standard and enhanced SSP (n = 11); electronically delivered SSP (n = 5); and SSP integrated with other approaches (n = 6). Only three studies identified meaningful activity as a component of SSP. Evidence across a range of studies indicates that SSP is effective for reducing suicide behavior (SB) and ideation (SI). While some studies have demonstrated effectiveness for reducing symptoms of mental illness, promoting resilience and service use, the number of studies exploring these outcomes is currently limited. Implications. Occupational therapists support individuals expressing SI, and SSP is a necessary skill for practice.
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 | 0.024 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".