OBJECTIVES: Increasing rates of suicide in the military indicate current assessment approaches are not yielding accurate determinations of risk. Concern that endorsement of suicidal ideation may result in obstacles to career advancement may be resulting in nondisclosure. METHOD: To test this, we recruited a sample of US National Guard personnel (n = 789; 81.7% male; 63.2% white) and administered two measures of current thoughts of suicide. One measure was integrated into our risk assessment protocol and soldiers were thus aware that answers could result in referral to on site military mental health professionals. The other measure was not integrated into the risk assessment protocol and soldiers were thus aware that results would not be reported to on site military mental health professionals. RESULTS: As hypothesized, a higher proportion of individuals reported current thoughts of suicide on the measure not integrated into the risk protocol (9.4%) than on the measure that was (6.0%). Also as hypothesized, a higher proportion of those willing to endorse current thoughts of suicide on the measure not integrated into the risk protocol denied current thoughts of suicide on the one that was (61.5%) than vice versa (39.0%). Limitations include cross-sectional self-report data and a lack of counter-balancing of measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that increasing the confidentiality of risk assessments within the National Guard increases the likelihood of reporting of current thoughts of suicide.
OBJECTIVES: Increasing rates of suicide in the military indicate current assessment approaches are not yielding accurate determinations of risk. Concern that endorsement of suicidal ideation may result in obstacles to career advancement may be resulting in nondisclosure. METHOD: To test this, we recruited a sample of US National Guard personnel (n = 789; 81.7% male; 63.2% white) and administered two measures of current thoughts of suicide. One measure was integrated into our risk assessment protocol and soldiers were thus aware that answers could result in referral to on site military mental health professionals. The other measure was not integrated into the risk assessment protocol and soldiers were thus aware that results would not be reported to on site military mental health professionals. RESULTS: As hypothesized, a higher proportion of individuals reported current thoughts of suicide on the measure not integrated into the risk protocol (9.4%) than on the measure that was (6.0%). Also as hypothesized, a higher proportion of those willing to endorse current thoughts of suicide on the measure not integrated into the risk protocol denied current thoughts of suicide on the one that was (61.5%) than vice versa (39.0%). Limitations include cross-sectional self-report data and a lack of counter-balancing of measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that increasing the confidentiality of risk assessments within the National Guard increases the likelihood of reporting of current thoughts of suicide.
Authors: Brian C Thoma; Rachel H Salk; Sophia Choukas-Bradley; Tina R Goldstein; Michele D Levine; Michael P Marshal Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Ian H Stanley; Joseph W Boffa; Lia J Smith; Jana K Tran; N Brad Schmidt; Thomas E Joiner; Anka A Vujanovic Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Carol Chu; Melanie A Hom; Ian H Stanley; Anna R Gai; Matthew K Nock; Peter M Gutierrez; Thomas E Joiner Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-11-27
Authors: Laurel A Gaeddert; Alexandra L Schneider; Christin N Miller; Lindsey L Monteith; Lisa A Brenner; Jodie Katon; Claire A Hoffmire Journal: Res Nurs Health Date: 2020-08-22 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Fallon B Ringer; Kelly A Soberay; Megan L Rogers; Christopher R Hagan; Carol Chu; Matt Schneider; Matthew C Podlogar; Tracy Witte; Jill Holm-Denoma; E Ashby Plant; Peter M Gutierrez; Thomas E Joiner Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2017-11-13
Authors: Carol Chu; Jennifer M Buchman-Schmitt; Ian H Stanley; Melanie A Hom; Raymond P Tucker; Christopher R Hagan; Megan L Rogers; Matthew C Podlogar; Bruno Chiurliza; Fallon B Ringer; Matthew S Michaels; Connor H G Patros; Thomas E Joiner Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2017-10-26 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: Phoebe K McCutchan; Brian T Yates; David A Jobes; Amanda H Kerbrat; Katherine Anne Comtois Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Stephen Murata; Taylor Rezeppa; Brian Thoma; Laura Marengo; Katie Krancevich; Elizabeth Chiyka; Benjamin Hayes; Eli Goodfriend; Meredith Deal; Yongqi Zhong; Bradley Brummit; Tiffany Coury; Sarah Riston; David A Brent; Nadine M Melhem Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 6.505