• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

用 SAD PERSONS 量表预测自杀企图:一项纵向分析。

Predicting suicide attempts with the SAD PERSONS scale: a longitudinal analysis.

机构信息

Department of Psychiatry, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

出版信息

J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;73(6):e735-41. doi: 10.4088/JCP.11m07362.

DOI:10.4088/JCP.11m07362
PMID:22795212
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The SAD PERSONS scale is a widely used risk assessment tool for suicidal behavior despite a paucity of supporting data. The objective of this study was to examine the ability of the scale in predicting suicide attempts.

METHOD

Participants consisted of consecutive referrals (N=4,019) over 2 years (January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2010) to psychiatric services in the emergency departments of the 2 largest tertiary care hospitals in the province of Manitoba, Canada. SAD PERSONS and Modified SAD PERSONS (MSPS) scale scores were recorded for individuals at their index and all subsequent presentations. The 2 main outcome measures in the study included current suicide attempts (at index presentation) and future suicide attempts (within the next 6 months). The ability of the scales to predict suicide attempts was evaluated with logistic regression, sensitivity and specificity analyses, and receiver operating characteristic curves.

RESULTS

566 people presented with suicide attempts (14.1% of the sample). Both SAD PERSONS and MSPS showed poor predictive ability for future suicide attempts. Compared to low risk scores, high risk baseline scores had low sensitivity (19.6% and 40.0%, respectively) and low positive predictive value (5.3% and 7.4%, respectively). SAD PERSONS did not predict suicide attempts better than chance (area under the curve =0.572; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51-0.64; P value nonsignificant). Stepwise regression identified 5 original scale items that accounted for the greatest proportion of future suicide attempt variance. High risk scores using this model had high sensitivity (93.5%) and were associated with a 5-fold higher likelihood of future suicide attempt presentation (odds ratio =5.58; 95% CI, 2.24-13.86; P<.001).

CONCLUSION

In their current form, SAD PERSONS and MSPS do not accurately predict future suicide attempts.

摘要

目的

尽管缺乏支持数据,SAD PERSONS 量表仍是一种广泛用于自杀行为风险评估的工具。本研究旨在检验该量表预测自杀未遂的能力。

方法

参与者为 2009 年 1 月 1 日至 2010 年 12 月 31 日期间,在加拿大马尼托巴省最大的 2 家三级保健医院的急诊部门连续就诊的连续转诊者(N=4019)。为个体在其就诊时和所有后续就诊时记录 SAD PERSONS 和改良 SAD PERSONS(MSPS)量表评分。本研究中的 2 个主要结局指标为当前自杀未遂(就诊时)和未来 6 个月内自杀未遂。使用逻辑回归、敏感性和特异性分析以及受试者工作特征曲线评估量表预测自杀未遂的能力。

结果

566 人出现自杀未遂(样本的 14.1%)。SAD PERSONS 和 MSPS 对未来自杀未遂的预测能力均较差。与低风险评分相比,高风险基线评分的敏感性较低(分别为 19.6%和 40.0%),阳性预测值较低(分别为 5.3%和 7.4%)。SAD PERSONS 并不能比随机更好地预测自杀未遂(曲线下面积=0.572;95%置信区间[CI],0.51-0.64;P 值无统计学意义)。逐步回归确定了 5 个原始量表条目,这些条目占未来自杀未遂变异的最大比例。使用该模型的高风险评分具有较高的敏感性(93.5%),并且与未来自杀未遂就诊的可能性增加 5 倍相关(优势比=5.58;95%CI,2.24-13.86;P<.001)。

结论

在当前形式下,SAD PERSONS 和 MSPS 不能准确预测未来自杀未遂。

相似文献

1
Predicting suicide attempts with the SAD PERSONS scale: a longitudinal analysis.用 SAD PERSONS 量表预测自杀企图:一项纵向分析。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2012 Jun;73(6):e735-41. doi: 10.4088/JCP.11m07362.
2
Predictors of Future Suicide Attempts Among Individuals Referred to Psychiatric Services in the Emergency Department: A Longitudinal Study.急诊科精神科服务转诊患者未来自杀未遂的预测因素:一项纵向研究。
J Nerv Ment Dis. 2015 Jul;203(7):507-13. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0000000000000320.
3
Method of suicide attempt and reaction to survival as predictors of repeat suicide attempts: a longitudinal analysis.自杀企图方法和对生存的反应预测重复自杀企图:一项纵向分析。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;75(8):e802-8. doi: 10.4088/JCP.13m08879.
4
Short term risk of non-fatal and fatal suicidal behaviours: the predictive validity of the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale in a Swedish adult psychiatric population with a recent episode of self-harm.短期非致命和致命自杀行为风险:哥伦比亚自杀严重程度评定量表在瑞典成年精神病患者近期自伤发作中的预测有效性。
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Oct 1;18(1):319. doi: 10.1186/s12888-018-1883-8.
5
Predicting suicide with the SAD PERSONS scale.使用SAD PERSONS量表预测自杀。
Depress Anxiety. 2017 Sep;34(9):809-816. doi: 10.1002/da.22632. Epub 2017 May 4.
6
The emergency physician's assessment of suicide risk in intentional self-poisoning using the modified SAD PERSONS scale versus standard psychiatric evaluation in a general hospital in South India: a cross-sectional study.在印度南部一家综合医院,使用改良的SAD PERSONS量表对故意自我中毒患者进行自杀风险评估,与标准精神科评估的比较:一项横断面研究。
Trop Doct. 2015 Jan;45(1):21-6. doi: 10.1177/0049475514553985. Epub 2014 Oct 29.
7
Panic as an independent risk factor for suicide attempt in depressive illness: findings from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC).恐慌作为抑郁障碍自杀未遂的独立风险因素:来自国家酒精相关情况和流行病学调查(NESARC)的结果。
J Clin Psychiatry. 2011 Dec;72(12):1628-35. doi: 10.4088/JCP.10m06186blu. Epub 2011 Mar 22.
8
Wisconsin Card Sorting Test performance and impulsivity in patients with temporal lobe epilepsy: suicidal risk and suicide attempts.威斯康星卡片分类测验在颞叶癫痫患者中的表现与冲动性:自杀风险和自杀未遂。
Epilepsy Behav. 2010 Jan;17(1):39-45. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2009.09.010. Epub 2009 Nov 13.
9
Suicide attempts are associated with worse quality of life in patients with bipolar disorder type I.自杀企图与 I 型双相情感障碍患者的生活质量更差有关。
Compr Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;53(2):125-9. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2011.03.003. Epub 2011 May 6.
10
[Survey of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts in outpatients at 50 general hospitals in Beijing].[北京50家综合医院门诊患者自杀观念及自杀未遂情况调查]
Zhonghua Liu Xing Bing Xue Za Zhi. 2006 Jan;27(1):19-24.

引用本文的文献

1
Predictive validity of the SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales in a sample of suicide cases.SAD PERSONS量表和NO HOPE量表在自杀案例样本中的预测效度。
Front Psychol. 2025 Apr 24;16:1554971. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1554971. eCollection 2025.
2
[Predictive Value of the Huaxi Emotional Index in Assessing and Identifying High Suicide Risk Among Inpatients With Depression].[华西情感指数在评估和识别抑郁症住院患者高自杀风险中的预测价值]
Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2024 May 20;55(3):739-743. doi: 10.12182/20240560505.
3
Risk of death by suicide following self-harm presentations to healthcare: development and validation of a multivariable clinical prediction rule (OxSATS).
自残后自杀死亡风险:多变量临床预测规则(OxSATS)的制定和验证。
BMJ Ment Health. 2023 May;26(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjment-2023-300673.
4
Operational psychology and cold case investigations in New Zealand.新西兰的行动心理学与悬案调查
Forensic Sci Int Synerg. 2022 Nov 29;5:100293. doi: 10.1016/j.fsisyn.2022.100293. eCollection 2022.
5
Development of a Checklist for Predicting Suicidality Based on Risk and Protective Factors: The Gwangju Checklist for Evaluation of Suicidality.基于风险和保护因素的自杀倾向预测清单的开发:光州自杀倾向评估清单
Psychiatry Investig. 2022 Jun;19(6):470-479. doi: 10.30773/pi.2022.0063. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
6
Development and validation of the Durham Risk Score for estimating suicide attempt risk: A prospective cohort analysis.发展和验证达勒姆风险评分以估计自杀企图风险:一项前瞻性队列分析。
PLoS Med. 2021 Aug 5;18(8):e1003713. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003713. eCollection 2021 Aug.
7
Proposal for the Inclusion of Tobacco Use in Suicide Risk Scales: Results of a Meta-Analysis.纳入烟草使用情况于自杀风险评估量表的建议:一项荟萃分析的结果。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 5;18(11):6103. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18116103.
8
Behind therapists' emotional responses to suicidal patients: A study of the narrative crisis model of suicide and clinicians' emotions.治疗师对自杀患者情绪反应的背后:自杀叙事危机模型研究与临床医生的情绪
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2021 Aug;51(4):684-695. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12730. Epub 2021 Jan 23.
9
Accuracy of individual and combined risk-scale items in the prediction of repetition of self-harm: multicentre prospective cohort study.个体及综合风险量表项目在预测自我伤害重复发生方面的准确性:多中心前瞻性队列研究
BJPsych Open. 2020 Dec 2;7(1):e2. doi: 10.1192/bjo.2020.123.
10
Clinical Usefulness of the Geriatric Depression Scale to Identify the Elderly at Risk of Suicide.老年抑郁量表在识别有自杀风险老年人方面的临床实用性。
Psychiatry Investig. 2020 May;17(5):481-486. doi: 10.30773/pi.2019.0299. Epub 2020 May 15.