Regular close contact with specially trained staff is generally regarded as the best course of treatment for someone who has recently attempted to kill themselves, in order to prevent a repeat suicide attempt.
Of course it can be difficult to engage with this group of patients after-treatment, but recent research suggests that assertive and motivational consultations can help reduce rates of suicide (Hvid et al).
However, a new study published yesterday in the BMJ brings this approach into question, as it appears to show that assertive outreach is no better than standard care at reducing the negative spiralling that can lead to further attempted suicides.
The research team from the Psychiatric Centre in Copenhagen carried out a randomised controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment of 243 patients who had recently attempted suicide from 2007 to 2010. Patients were all older than 12 years and those living in institutions or with a diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorders were excluded.
Patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
- Standard group, where treatment involved care by the patient’s GP or psychologist, but crucially where the patient was responsible for seeking help
- Intervention group, where trained nurses visited the patient in their homes a few days after discharge from hospital and continued to do this for the following 6 months (totalling 8-20 appointments) in addition to standard care. Nurses sometimes accompanied patients to doctors’ appointments or meetings with social services, and other support (e.g. phone or text messages) was also on offer
Patients were followed up for 12 months and here’s what they found:
- 16% patients in the intervention group had been registered in hospital records with subsequent suicide attempt, compared with 11% in the control group (odds ratio 1.60, 95% confidence interval 0.76 to 3.38; P=0.22)
- By contrast, self reported data on new events showed 12% in the intervention group versus 18% in the control group (0.61, 0.26 to 1.46; P=0.27)
- The research team attributed missing self-report data and estimated 12% events in the intervention group and 19% in the control group (0.69, 0.34 to 1.43; P=0.32)
The researchers concluded:
Assertive outreach showed no significant effect on subsequent suicide attempt. The difference in rates of events between register data and self reported data could indicate detection bias.
The authors go on to point out that patients who received the assertive outreach were more likely than controls to be hospitalised and treated for subsequent suicide attempts.
Lead author Britt Morthorst said:
Unfortunately, the conclusion must be that neither standard treatment nor additional assertive outreach is good enough. My suggestion is that we try to get hold of young people at risk before they attempt suicide the first time. We are looking with interest at some American Teen-Screen programmes, which look at young people’s mental health generally, to see if we can identify any danger signals to which we could respond earlier.
If you need help
If you need help and support now and you live in the UK or the Republic of Ireland, please call the Samaritans on 116 123.
If you live elsewhere, we recommend finding a local Crisis Centre on the IASP website.
We also highly recommend that you visit the Connecting with People: Staying Safe resource.
Links
Morthorst B, Krogh J, Erlangsen A, Alberdi F, Nordentoft M. Effect of assertive outreach after suicide attempt in the AID (assertive intervention for deliberate self harm) trial: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2012;345:e4972.
Hvid M, Vangborg K, Sorensen HJ, Nielsen IK, Stenborg JM, Wang AG. Preventing repetition of attempted suicide-II. The Amager Project, a randomized controlled trial. Nord J Psychiatry 2011;65:292-8. [PubMed abstract]
I always find the reporting of such studies extremely frustrating. So many factors can intervene that may or may not make a difference in how a person (regardless of age) feels about suicide and attempting suicide. The impact of an outreach team may be irrelevant, or may be highly relevant, in combination or not with other factors….
Yes I realise that (re RCTs) but this is where RCTs really fall short because they can be so totally removed from real world effects, i.e. life itself in all its ambiguities (good and less good) and wonderful twists and turns. This is probably where and why I prefer to be a qualitative (narrative) researcher…
Both have their place and tell a different story. Sometimes they can complement each other. Unfortunately, we live in a world that is dictated by a thirst for facts which can also ressemble fiction when only part of the story (numbers) is told. Let’s not forget the political and economic agendas behind this either (e.g. the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on policy making at EU and national levels).
Still too often qualitative research gets shunned as unreliable or “unrepresentative”, “anecdotal” which is ridiculous. Policy makers however like large samples, large population effect and forget (as in the reporting of treatment for depression) that by ignoring the small effects or the individual stories, we ignore what things are really like for people. Just looking at pure effect(s) may ignore a big chunk of the story.
I became a user researcher because I felt conventional research was too remote from the real world and not grounded enough in our experiences if at all in certain cases.
There’s a really interesting editorial on this paper written by Michael Kaess in the BMJ today, for those of you with access to that journal:
Suicide prevention
BMJ 2012; 345 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5779
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e5779.full
Cheers,
The Mental Elf
teen screen programmes are funded by pharmaceutical industry and are very keen to get teens prescribed antidepressants, I would be concerned about the over medicalisation of teens
what about more education about emotional health, management of emotions, understanding teen brain development and the importance of attachment,(teens with attachment issues need to be taught self soothing techniques, and anger management ) Nutrition for a teen’s developing brain is also essential Omega 3, vit B and D to mention a few. Blaustein’s and Kinniburgh’s book on treating traumatic stress in children and adolescents has practical work sheets in the back as well as having a really good model to implement into practice with teens.
we need a holistic early educative approach not medical intervention to start with. Early intervention, education is the key to prevention
please don’t let the first sentence of my first comment about teen screen go through it is not funded directly from the pharamaceutical industry ( it was developed at Columbria University.