Arch Suicide Res. 2022 Oct-Dec;26(4):1645-1665. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2021.1938321. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk assessment tools in predicting self-harm and suicide risk. This systematic review examines the effect of risk assessment strategies on predicting suicide and self-harm outcomes among adult healthcare service users.
Electronic and gray literature databases were searched for prospective research. Studies were screened and selected by independent reviewers. Quality and level of evidence assessments were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis under three categories: (1) suicide- and self-harm-related outcomes; (2) clinician assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; and (3) healthcare utilization due to self-harm or suicide.
Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The SAD PERSONS Scale was the most used tool. It outperformed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation in predicting hospital admissions and stay following suicide and self-harm, yet it failed to predict repeat suicide and self-harm and was not recommended for routine use. There were mixed findings relating to clinician risk assessment, with some studies recommending clinician assessment over structured tools, whilst others found that clinician assessment failed to predict future attempts and deaths.
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one tool, inclusive of clinician assessment of risk, for self-harm and suicidality. The discourse around risk assessment needs to move toward a broader discussion on the safety of patients who are at risk for self-harm and/or suicide.HIGHLIGHTSThere is insufficient evidence to support using standalone risk assessment tools.There are mixed findings relating to clinician assessment of risk.Structured professional judgment is widely accepted for risk assessment.
自杀和自残行为普遍存在但却报道不足。风险评估是有效预防和管理自残和自杀的关键。关于风险评估工具预测自残和自杀风险的有效性存在相互矛盾的证据。本系统评价研究了风险评估策略对预测成年医疗保健服务使用者的自杀和自残结局的影响。
电子和灰色文献数据库被用于搜索前瞻性研究。研究由独立评审员进行筛选和选择。进行了质量和证据水平评估。由于研究存在异质性,我们根据以下三个类别进行了叙述性综合:(1)自杀和自残相关结局;(2)临床医生对自杀和自残风险的评估;以及(3)自残或自杀导致的医疗保健利用。
本综述纳入了 21 项研究。SAD PERSONS 量表是使用最多的工具。它在预测自杀和自残后的住院和住院时间方面优于贝克自杀意念量表,但未能预测重复自杀和自残,因此不建议常规使用。关于临床医生风险评估的结果存在差异,一些研究建议临床医生评估优于结构化工具,而其他研究则发现临床医生评估未能预测未来的尝试和死亡。
没有足够的证据支持使用任何一种工具,包括对风险的临床医生评估,来进行自残和自杀。围绕风险评估的讨论需要转向更广泛地讨论有自残和/或自杀风险的患者的安全性。
单独使用风险评估工具的证据不足。
与临床医生评估风险相关的发现存在差异。
结构化专业判断广泛用于风险评估。