Jamison Jesslyn M, Brady Megan, Fang Annalisa, Bùi Trà-My N, Wolk Courtney Benjamin, Davis Molly, Beidas Rinad S, Young Jami F, Mautone Jennifer A, Jager-Hyman Shari, Becker-Haimes Emily M
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Hall Mercer Community Mental Health, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Community Ment Health J. 2025 Apr;61(3):568-575. doi: 10.1007/s10597-024-01364-6. Epub 2024 Oct 3.
Clinician distress about working with patients at risk for suicide is well documented in the literature, yet little work has examined its pervasiveness across clinical settings. We conducted a secondary analysis of qualitative data gathered from 26 clinicians in primary care and outpatient mental health clinics serving both adult and child clients on their perception of evidence-based practice use for suicide screening, assessment, and brief intervention. Qualitative data were coded for any mentions of clinician anxiety or emotional response, and brief quantitative measures were collected to characterize our sample. When discussing broader barriers to implementation, 85% of participants spontaneously mentioned anxiety or heightened emotional responses related to delivering suicide prevention practices to those at risk for suicide. Common themes included low self-efficacy in suicide prevention skills, distress related to escalating care, efforts to alleviate such distress, and difficulty related to tolerating the uncertainty inherent in suicide prevention work. Similarly, while standardized anxiety ratings for participants were consistent with those of non-clinical norming samples, clinicians reported mild to moderate anxiety when screening for suicide risk (M = 3.64, SD = 2.19, Range = 0-8) and engaging in safety planning (M = 4.1, SD = 2.88, Range = 1-7) on post-interview surveys. In contrast, survey responses reflected generally high self-efficacy in their ability to screen for suicide risk (M = 7.66, SD = 1.29, Range = 5.25-10) and engage in safety planning (M = 8.25, SD = 0.87, Range = 7-9.5). Findings highlight pervasiveness of clinician distress when implementing suicide prevention practices and can inform future suicide prevention implementation efforts.
临床医生在治疗有自杀风险的患者时所面临的困扰在文献中有充分记载,但很少有研究探讨其在不同临床环境中的普遍性。我们对从26名初级保健和门诊心理健康诊所的临床医生收集的定性数据进行了二次分析,这些诊所为成人和儿童患者提供服务,内容涉及他们对用于自杀筛查、评估和简短干预的循证实践的看法。对定性数据中任何提及临床医生焦虑或情绪反应的内容进行编码,并收集简短的定量指标来描述我们的样本。在讨论实施过程中更广泛的障碍时,85%的参与者自发提到了与向有自杀风险的人提供自杀预防措施相关的焦虑或情绪反应加剧。常见主题包括自杀预防技能的自我效能感低、与护理升级相关的困扰、缓解此类困扰的努力以及忍受自杀预防工作中固有不确定性的困难。同样,虽然参与者的标准化焦虑评分与非临床规范样本一致,但临床医生在访谈后调查中报告,在筛查自杀风险(M = 3.64,标准差 = 2.19,范围 = 0 - 8)和进行安全规划(M = 4.1,标准差 = 2.88)时存在轻度至中度焦虑。相比之下,调查回复反映出他们在筛查自杀风险(M = 7.66,标准差 = 1.29,范围 = 5.25 - 10)和进行安全规划(M = 8.25,标准差 = 0.87,范围 = 7 - 9.5)方面的自我效能感普遍较高。研究结果突出了临床医生在实施自杀预防措施时困扰的普遍性,并可为未来的自杀预防实施工作提供参考。