Safety Planning Interventions for Suicide Prevention in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".