Sanz-Gómez Sergio, De La Vega-Sánchez Diego, Alacreu-Crespo Adrián, Ordoñez-Carrasco Jorge Luis, Perea-González María Isabel, Castell-Navarro Aida, Guija Julio, Giner Lucas
Departamento de Psiquiatría de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain.
Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, Seville, Spain.
Front Psychol. 2025 Apr 24;16:1554971. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1554971. eCollection 2025.
Suicide is a global public health issue necessitating evidence-based prevention strategies. Many individuals who die by suicide have had prior contact with healthcare services. Nearly half visit a primary care provider within a month before their death, and many visit emergency departments (EDs) frequently. Effective risk assessment in EDs is critical for suicide prevention but remains challenging. Inadequate risk assessments are a common error identified in suicide deaths. While clinical interviews are vital, risk assessment scales can support decision-making. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales are widely used but have limitations in predictive value.
A case-control study using psychological autopsy (PA) was conducted from 2006 to 2016. Data were collected from 662 individuals in southern Spain, including 487 suicide cases and 175 controls. PAs involved interviews with close relatives and were conducted by trained psychiatrists or psychologists. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales were utilised, and data were analysed using sensitivity, specificity, and logistic regression to develop an improved predictive model.
The SAD PERSONS scale showed high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting suicide risk. In the non-suicide group, 91.6% were classified as low risk. In the suicide group, nearly half were classified as low risk (49.6%). The modified SAD PERSONS scale showed similar results. The NO HOPE scale had low sensitivity but high specificity. An improved predictive model incorporating key variables from both scales demonstrated higher sensitivity (93.609%) and specificity (91.608%).
The SAD PERSONS scale has limitations in effectively predicting suicide risk, particularly due to its focus on non-modifiable factors. Adding variables from the NO HOPE scale improves predictive utility. Comprehensive clinical assessments, considering psychological, social, and environmental factors, are essential for accurate suicide risk evaluation and tailored intervention.
自杀是一个全球性的公共卫生问题,需要有循证预防策略。许多自杀身亡的人此前都曾与医疗服务机构有过接触。近半数人在死亡前一个月内看过初级保健医生,还有许多人频繁前往急诊科就诊。急诊科进行有效的风险评估对预防自杀至关重要,但仍具有挑战性。风险评估不足是自杀死亡案例中常见的错误。虽然临床访谈至关重要,但风险评估量表有助于决策。SAD PERSONS量表和NO HOPE量表被广泛使用,但在预测价值方面存在局限性。
2006年至2016年进行了一项采用心理解剖(PA)的病例对照研究。从西班牙南部的662个人收集数据,包括487例自杀案例和175名对照。心理解剖包括与近亲进行访谈,由经过培训的精神科医生或心理学家进行。使用了SAD PERSONS量表和NO HOPE量表,并通过敏感性、特异性和逻辑回归分析数据,以建立一个改进的预测模型。
SAD PERSONS量表在预测自杀风险方面显示出高特异性但低敏感性。在非自杀组中,91.6%被归类为低风险。在自杀组中,近半数被归类为低风险(49.6%)。改良的SAD PERSONS量表显示出类似结果。NO HOPE量表敏感性低但特异性高。一个结合了两个量表关键变量的改进预测模型显示出更高的敏感性(93.609%)和特异性(91.608%)。
SAD PERSONS量表在有效预测自杀风险方面存在局限性,特别是因为它侧重于不可改变的因素。加入NO HOPE量表的变量可提高预测效用。综合考虑心理、社会和环境因素的全面临床评估对于准确评估自杀风险和制定针对性干预措施至关重要。