Department of Clinical Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, <location>Amsterdam, The Netherlands</location>
Crisis. 2010;31(5):281-4. doi: 10.1027/0227-5910/a000049.
Despite the growing strength of the field of suicidology, various commentators have recently noted that insufficient effort is being put into intervention research, and that this is limiting our knowledge of which suicide prevention strategies might be the most effective.
To profile the types of studies currently being undertaken by suicide prevention researchers from around the world, in order to examine the relative balance between intervention studies and other types of research.
We searched the abstract books from the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th Congresses of the International Association for Suicide Prevention and the 10th, 11th, and 12th European Symposia on Suicide and Suicidal Behavior (held between 2003 and 2008), and classified the abstracts in them according to a modified version of an existing taxonomy.
We screened 1209 abstracts and found that only 12% described intervention studies.
We need to redouble our efforts and make intervention studies our priority if we are to combat the global problem of suicide.
尽管自杀学领域的实力不断增强,但最近有多位评论员指出,干预研究的投入不足,这限制了我们对哪些自杀预防策略可能最有效的了解。
分析来自世界各地的自杀预防研究人员目前正在进行的研究类型,以检查干预研究与其他类型研究之间的相对平衡。
我们检索了第 22、23 和 24 届国际自杀预防协会大会和第 10、11 和 12 届欧洲自杀和自杀行为研讨会(2003 年至 2008 年举行)的摘要集,并根据现有的分类法的修改版对摘要进行了分类。
我们筛选了 1209 篇摘要,发现只有 12%的摘要描述了干预研究。
如果我们要应对全球自杀问题,我们需要加倍努力,将干预研究作为我们的优先事项。