Dataset Information

Adolescent Suicide Risk Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the SHIELD Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of adolescent suicide risk screening to increase initiation of mental health services via a secondary analysis using data from the SHIELD (Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate and Lower Depression) randomized clinical trial, which evaluated school-based screening for major depressive disorder (MDD).

Study design

Students in 14 Pennsylvania high schools were randomized by grade to either the usual school practice of targeted referral for behavior raising a concern for suicide risk or universal screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), with any response >0 to item 9 regarding suicide risk considered positive. Students identified in either arm were referred to the Student Assistance Program (SAP), which is mandated in all Pennsylvania schools. The SAP determined follow-up. Study groups were compared using mixed-effects logistic regression.

Results

The participants comprised 12 909 students, with 6473 (50.1%) randomized to universal screening. The study group was 46% female and 43% Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black. Adolescents in the universal screening arm had 7.1-fold greater odds (95% CI, 5.7-8.8) of being identified as at risk for suicide, 7.8-fold greater odds (95% CI, 4.6-13.1) of follow-up needs, and 4.0-fold greater odds (95% CI, 2.0-7.9) of initiating mental health treatment.

Conclusions

Although the PHQ-9 is a MDD screening tool, its use in universal screening increased identification and treatment initiation for adolescents at risk for suicide. This confirms the value of universal screening and suggests that a suicide-specific risk assessment would have even greater impact on treatment initiation for identified youth.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03716869.

SUBMITTER: Sekhar DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10249009 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Adolescent Suicide Risk Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the SHIELD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Sekhar Deepa L DL Batra Erich E Schaefer Eric W EW Walker-Harding Leslie R LR Pattison Krista L KL Molinari Alissa A Rosen Perri P Kraschnewski Jennifer L JL Waxmonsky James G JG

The Journal of pediatrics 20220806

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the effectiveness of adolescent suicide risk screening to increase initiation of mental health services via a secondary analysis using data from the SHIELD (Screening in High Schools to Identify, Evaluate and Lower Depression) randomized clinical trial, which evaluated school-based screening for major depressive disorder (MDD).<h4>Study design</h4>Students in 14 Pennsylvania high schools were randomized by grade to either the usual school practice of targeted referr ...[more]

PMID: 35944722

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceHealth risk behaviors are a leading cause of morbidity during adolescence. Screening and counseling for health risk behaviors are recommended but infrequently performed.ObjectiveTo test the effect of an electronic screening and feedback tool on clinician counseling and adolescent-reported health risk behaviors.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial compared electronic screening and feedback on an intention-to-treat basis with usual care among 300 youths 13 to 18 years of age at 5 pediatric clinics in the Pacific Northwest. Outcomes were assessed via electronic survey at 1 day and 3 months after the initial visit. Study data collection occurred from March 13, 2015, to November 29, 2016, and statistical analysis was conducted between February 6, 2017, and June 20, 2018.InterventionsYouths in the intervention group (n = 147) received electronic screening and personalized feedback with clinician clinical decision support. Youths in the control group (n = 153) received standard screening and counseling as provided by their clinic.Main outcomes and measuresYouths' report of receipt of counseling during the visit and risk behaviors at 3 months.ResultsIn the final study sample of 300 youths (intervention group, 75 girls and 72 boys; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.4 years]; and control group, 80 girls and 73 boys; mean [SD] age, 14.5 [1.4] years), 234 (78.0%) were aged 13 to 15 years. After adjusting for age, sex, and random effect of clinic, youths in the intervention group were more likely to receive counseling for each of their reported risk behaviors than were youths in the control group (adjusted rate ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63). Youths in the intervention group had a significantly greater reduction (β = -0.48; 95% CI, -0.89 to -0.02; P = .02) in their risk behavior scores at 3 months when compared with youths in the control group.Conclusions and relevanceElectronic screening of health risk behavior with clinical decision support and motivational feedback to teens can improve care delivery and outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02360410.

Project description:ImportanceThe Cluster Randomized Trial of PSA Testing for Prostate Cancer (CAP) reported no effect of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening on prostate cancer mortality at a median 10-year follow-up (primary outcome), but the long-term effects of PSA screening on prostate cancer mortality remain unclear.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a single invitation for PSA screening on prostate cancer-specific mortality at a median 15-year follow-up compared with no invitation for screening.Design, setting, and participantsThis secondary analysis of the CAP randomized clinical trial included men aged 50 to 69 years identified at 573 primary care practices in England and Wales. Primary care practices were randomized between September 25, 2001, and August 24, 2007, and men were enrolled between January 8, 2002, and January 20, 2009. Follow-up was completed on March 31, 2021.InterventionMen received a single invitation for a PSA screening test with subsequent diagnostic tests if the PSA level was 3.0 ng/mL or higher. The control group received standard practice (no invitation).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was reported previously. Of 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, results of 4 were reported previously. The 4 remaining prespecified secondary outcomes at 15-year follow-up were prostate cancer-specific mortality, all-cause mortality, and prostate cancer stage and Gleason grade at diagnosis.ResultsOf 415 357 eligible men (mean [SD] age, 59.0 [5.6] years), 98% were included in these analyses. Overall, 12 013 and 12 958 men with a prostate cancer diagnosis were in the intervention and control groups, respectively (15-year cumulative risk, 7.08% [95% CI, 6.95%-7.21%] and 6.94% [95% CI, 6.82%-7.06%], respectively). At a median 15-year follow-up, 1199 men in the intervention group (0.69% [95% CI, 0.65%-0.73%]) and 1451 men in the control group (0.78% [95% CI, 0.73%-0.82%]) died of prostate cancer (rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0.99]; P = .03). Compared with the control, the PSA screening intervention increased detection of low-grade (Gleason score [GS] ≤6: 2.2% vs 1.6%; P < .001) and localized (T1/T2: 3.6% vs 3.1%; P < .001) disease but not intermediate (GS of 7), high-grade (GS ≥8), locally advanced (T3), or distally advanced (T4/N1/M1) tumors. There were 45 084 all-cause deaths in the intervention group (23.2% [95% CI, 23.0%-23.4%]) and 50 336 deaths in the control group (23.3% [95% CI, 23.1%-23.5%]) (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-1.01]; P = .11). Eight of the prostate cancer deaths in the intervention group (0.7%) and 7 deaths in the control group (0.5%) were related to a diagnostic biopsy or prostate cancer treatment.Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a single invitation for PSA screening compared with standard practice without routine screening reduced prostate cancer deaths at a median follow-up of 15 years. However, the absolute reduction in deaths was small.Trial registrationisrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN92187251.

Project description:ImportanceThis is the first cost-effectiveness analysis of a brief therapy, the Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP), for individuals who attempt suicide.ObjectiveTo explore the cost-effectiveness of the ASSIP intervention in the context of the Swiss health care system.Design, setting, and participantsIn this economic evaluation, the cost-effectiveness analysis was performed from a health care perspective between January 2017 and April 2018 using data from a randomized clinical trial conducted between June 2009 and December 2014. Participants were individuals who had attempted suicide and were receiving treatment at a psychiatric university hospital in Switzerland that provides inpatient and outpatient services for suicide attempters referred from an emergency department of a general hospital.InterventionsThe intervention group received 3 manual-based therapy sessions followed by regular personalized letters over 24 months. The control group was offered a single suicide risk assessment.Main outcomes and measuresThe main economic analysis explored cost per suicide attempt avoided expressed in 2015 Swiss francs (CHF). Cost-effectiveness planes were plotted and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves calculated.ResultsOne hundred twenty participants (mean [SD] age, 37.8 [14.4] years; 66 [55%] women and 54 [45%] men) were assigned to an intervention group or a control group, each with 60 participants. At 24 months of follow-up, 5 suicide attempts were reported in the ASSIP group among 59 participants with follow-up data available, and 41 were reported in the control group among 53 participants with follow-up data available. The ASSIP group had higher intervention costs, with CHF 1323 vs CHF 441 for the control group. At 24 months of follow-up, psychiatric hospital costs were lower in the ASSIP group than in the control group, although this difference was not significant (mean [SD], CHF 20 559 [38 676] vs CHF 45 488 [73 306]; mean difference, CHF -16 081; 95% CI, CHF -34 717 to 1536; P = .11). General hospital costs were significantly lower for the ASSIP group. Total health care costs were also lower, but the difference was not significant (mean [SD], CHF 21 302 [38 819] vs 41 287 [74 310]; difference, CHF -12 604; 95% CI, CHF -29 837 to 625; P = .14). In a base-case analysis, ASSIP was dominant, with significantly fewer reattempts at lower overall cost. The intervention had a 96% chance of being less costly and more effective. A sensitivity analysis showed a 96% and 95% chance of ASSIP being more effective and less costly at willingness-to-pay levels of CHF 0 and CHF 30 000, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe ASSIP intervention is a cost-saving treatment for individuals who attempt suicide. The findings support the use of ASSIP as a treatment for suicide attempters. Further studies are needed to determine cost-effectiveness in other contexts.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02505373.

Project description:ImportanceAlthough racial disparities in acute pain control are well established, the role of patient analgesic preference and the factors associated with these disparities remain unclear.ObjectiveTo characterize racial disparities in opioid prescribing for acute pain after accounting for patient preference and to test the hypothesis that racial disparities may be mitigated by giving clinicians additional information about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse.Design, setting, and participantsThis study is a secondary analysis of data collected from Life STORRIED (Life Stories for Opioid Risk Reduction in the ED), a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted between June 2017 and August 2019 in the emergency departments (EDs) of 4 academic medical centers. Participants included 1302 patients aged 18 to 70 years who presented to the ED with ureter colic or musculoskeletal back and/or neck pain.InterventionsThe treatment arm was randomized to receive a patient-facing intervention (not examined in this secondary analysis) and a clinician-facing intervention that consisted of a form containing information about each patient's analgesic treatment preference and risk of opioid misuse.Main outcomes and measuresConcordance between patient preference for opioid-containing treatment (assessed before ED discharge) and receipt of an opioid prescription at ED discharge.ResultsAmong 1302 participants in the Life STORRIED clinical trial, 1012 patients had complete demographic and treatment preference data available and were included in this secondary analysis. Of those, 563 patients (55.6%) self-identified as female, with a mean (SD) age of 40.8 (14.1) years. A total of 455 patients (45.0%) identified as White, 384 patients (37.9%) identified as Black, and 173 patients (17.1%) identified as other races. After controlling for demographic characteristics and clinical features, Black patients had lower odds than White patients of receiving a prescription for opioid medication at ED discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65). When patients who did and did not prefer opioids were considered separately, Black patients continued to have lower odds of being discharged with a prescription for opioids compared with White patients (among those who preferred opioids: OR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.24-0.77]; among those who did not prefer opioids: OR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.23-0.89]). These disparities were not eliminated in the treatment arm, in which clinicians were given additional data about their patients' treatment preferences and risk of opioid misuse.Conclusions and relevanceIn this secondary analysis of data from a randomized clinical trial, Black patients received different acute pain management than White patients after patient preference was accounted for. These disparities remained after clinicians were given additional patient-level data, suggesting that a lack of patient information may not be associated with opioid prescribing disparities.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03134092.

Project description:ImportanceSuicide is a leading cause of death among 10- to 24-year-old individuals in the United States; evidence on effective treatment for adolescents who engage in suicidal and self-harm behaviors is limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) compared with individual and group supportive therapy (IGST) for reducing suicide attempts, nonsuicidal self-injury, and overall self-harm among high-risk youths.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 1, 2012, through August 31, 2014, at 4 academic medical centers. A total of 173 participants (pool of 195; 22 withdrew or were excluded) 12 to 18 years of age with a prior lifetime suicide attempt (≥3 prior self-harm episodes, suicidal ideation, or emotional dysregulation) were studied. Adaptive randomization balanced participants across conditions within sites based on age, number of prior suicide attempts, and psychotropic medication use. Participants were followed up for 1 year.InterventionsStudy participants were randomly assigned to DBT or IGST. Treatment duration was 6 months. Both groups had weekly individual and group psychotherapy, therapist consultation meetings, and parent contact as needed.Main outcomes and measuresA priori planned outcomes were suicide attempts, nonsuicidal self-injury, and total self-harm assessed using the Suicide Attempt Self-Injury Interview.ResultsA total of 173 adolescents (163 [94.8%] female and 97 [56.4%] white; mean [SD] age, 14.89 [1.47] years) were studied. Significant advantages were found for DBT on all primary outcomes after treatment: suicide attempts (65 [90.3%] of 72 receiving DBT vs 51 [78.9%] of 65 receiving IGST with no suicide attempts; odds ratio [OR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.10-0.91), nonsuicidal self-injury (41 [56.9%] of 72 receiving DBT vs 26 [40.0%] of 65 receiving IGST with no self-injury; OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.13-0.70), and self-harm (39 [54.2%] of 72 receiving DBT vs 24 [36.9%] of 65 receiving IGST with no self-harm; OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.14-0.78). Rates of self-harm decreased through 1-year follow-up. The advantage of DBT decreased, with no statistically significant between-group differences from 6 to 12 months (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.12-3.36; P = .61). Treatment completion rates were higher for DBT (75.6%) than for IGST (55.2%), but pattern-mixture models indicated that this difference did not informatively affect outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this trial support the efficacy of DBT for reducing self-harm and suicide attempts in highly suicidal self-harming adolescents. On the basis of the criteria of 2 independent trials supporting efficacy, results support DBT as the first well-established, empirically supported treatment for decreasing repeated suicide attempts and self-harm in youths.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01528020.

Dataset Information

Adolescent Suicide Risk Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the SHIELD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective

Study design

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Adolescent Suicide Risk Screening: A Secondary Analysis of the SHIELD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets