Although recent years have seen large decreases in the overall global rate of suicide fatalities, this trend is not reflected everywhere. Suicide and suicidal behaviour continue to present key challenges for public policy and health services, with increasing suicide deaths in some countries such as the USA. The development of suicide risk is complex, involving contributions from biological (including genetics), psychological (such as certain personality traits), clinical (such as comorbid psychiatric illness), social and environmental factors. The involvement of multiple risk factors in conveying risk of suicide means that determining an individual’s risk of suicide is challenging. Improving risk assessment, for example, by using computer testing and genetic screening, is an area of ongoing research. Prevention is key to reduce the number of suicide deaths and prevention efforts include universal, selective and indicated interventions, although these interventions are often delivered in combination. These interventions, combined with psychological (such as cognitive behavioural therapy, caring contacts and safety planning) and pharmacological treatments (for example, clozapine and ketamine) along with coordinated social and public health initiatives, should continue to improve the management of individuals who are suicidal and decrease suicide-associated morbidity. Suicide and suicidal behaviour continue to present key challenges for public policy and health services. This Primer discusses the global burden of suicide and suicidal behaviours, and provides an overview of our current understanding of the mechanisms of suicide, including risk factors for suicidal ideation and the transition from ideation to suicide attempt.

/pdf/suicide-and-suicide-risk-2mwsvcppvb.pdf

Suicide and suicide risk

Prior research has shown that most known risk factors for suicide attempts in the general population actually predict suicide ideation rather than attempts among ideators. Yet clinical interest in predicting suicide attempts often involves the evaluation of risk among patients with ideation. We examined a number of characteristics of suicidal thoughts hypothesized to predict incident attempts in a retrospective analysis of lifetime ideators (N = 3,916) drawn from a large (N = 29,982), representative sample of United States Army soldiers. The most powerful predictors of first nonfatal lifetime suicide attempt in a multivariate model controlling for previously known predictors (e.g., demographics, mental disorders) were: recent onset of ideation, presence and recent onset of a suicide plan, low controllability of suicidal thoughts, extreme risk-taking or "tempting fate," and failure to answer questions about the characteristics of one's suicidal thoughts. A predictive model using these risk factors had strong accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = .93), with 66.2% of all incident suicide attempts occurring among the 5% of soldiers with highest composite predicted risk. This high concentration of risk in this retrospective study suggests that a useful clinical decision support model could be constructed from prospective data to identify those with highest risk of subsequent suicide attempt. (PsycINFO Database Record

/pdf/risk-factors-for-the-transition-from-suicide-ideation-to-3ggxx5fv7b.pdf

Risk factors for the transition from suicide ideation to suicide attempt: Results from the Army Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers (Army STARRS).

https://eprints.ncl.ac.uk/file_store/production/247733/F0246BFD-E3A7-49A5-8A24-F6BA036570D4.pdf

Measurement properties of tools used to assess suicidality in autistic and general population adults: A systematic review

https://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/27543/1/From%20ideation%20to%20action.pdf

From ideation to action: differentiating between those who think about suicide and those who attempt suicide in a national study of young adults

Risk scales are used widely in the management of patients presenting to hospital following self-harm. However, there is evidence that their diagnostic accuracy in predicting repeat self-harm is limited. Their predictive accuracy in population settings, and in identifying those at highest risk of suicide is not known. We compared the predictive accuracy of the Manchester Self-Harm Rule (MSHR), ReACT Self-Harm Rule (ReACT), SAD PERSONS Scale (SPS) and Modified SAD PERSONS Scale (MSPS) in an unselected sample of patients attending hospital following self-harm. Data on 4000 episodes of self-harm presenting to Emergency Departments (ED) between 2010 and 2012 were obtained from four established monitoring systems in England. Episodes were assigned a risk category for each scale and followed up for 6 months. The episode-based repeat rate was 28% (1133/4000) and the incidence of suicide was 0.5% (18/3962). The MSHR and ReACT performed with high sensitivity (98% and 94% respectively) and low specificity (15% and 23%). The SPS and the MSPS performed with relatively low sensitivity (24–29% and 9–12% respectively) and high specificity (76–77% and 90%). The area under the curve was 71% for both MSHR and ReACT, 51% for SPS and 49% for MSPS. Differences in predictive accuracy by subgroup were small. The scales were less accurate at predicting suicide than repeat self-harm. The scales failed to accurately predict repeat self-harm and suicide. The findings support existing clinical guidance not to use risk classification scales alone to determine treatment or predict future risk.

/pdf/accuracy-of-risk-scales-for-predicting-repeat-self-harm-and-v5zglu2ye2.pdf

Accuracy of risk scales for predicting repeat self-harm and suicide: a multicentre, population-level cohort study using routine clinical data

BackgroundScales are widely used in psychiatric assessments following self-harm. Robust evidence for their diagnostic use is lacking.AimsTo evaluate the performance of risk scales (Manchester Self-Harm Rule, ReACT Self-Harm Rule, SAD PERSONS scale, Modified SAD PERSONS scale, Barratt Impulsiveness Scale); and patient and clinician estimates of risk in identifying patients who repeat self-harm within 6 months.MethodA multisite prospective cohort study was conducted of adults aged 18 years and over referred to liaison psychiatry services following self-harm. Scale a priori cut-offs were evaluated using diagnostic accuracy statistics. The area under the curve (AUC) was used to determine optimal cut-offs and compare global accuracy.ResultsIn total, 483 episodes of self-harm were included in the study. The episode-based 6-month repetition rate was 30% (n = 145). Sensitivity ranged from 1% (95% CI 0-5) for the SAD PERSONS scale, to 97% (95% CI 93-99) for the Manchester Self-Harm Rule. Positive predictive values ranged from 13% (95% CI 2-47) for the Modified SAD PERSONS Scale to 47% (95% CI 41-53) for the clinician assessment of risk. The AUC ranged from 0.55 (95% CI 0.50-0.61) for the SAD PERSONS scale to 0.74 (95% CI 0.69-0.79) for the clinician global scale. The remaining scales performed significantly worse than clinician and patient estimates of risk (P<0.001).ConclusionsRisk scales following self-harm have limited clinical utility and may waste valuable resources. Most scales performed no better than clinician or patient ratings of risk. Some performed considerably worse. Positive predictive values were modest. In line with national guidelines, risk scales should not be used to determine patient management or predict self-harm.

/pdf/predictive-accuracy-of-risk-scales-following-self-harm-yx5setdpug.pdf

Kezia Lange

Papers

Predictive accuracy of risk scales following self-harm: Multicentre prospective cohort study