Erin F Ward-Ciesielski1,2, Chelsey R Wilks2,3. 1. Department of Psychology, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY, USA. 2. University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 3. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Suicide prediction, prevention, and intervention are urgent research areas. One barrier for research with high-risk populations is limited resources to manage risk in a research setting. We describe using the University of Washington Risk Assessment Protocol (UWRAP) to assess and manage suicide risk during phone-administered eligibility assessments in two clinical trials. METHOD: Study 1 (N = 151) recruited suicidal adults who were not engaged in mental health treatment and Study 2 (N = 135) recruited suicidal adults who used alcohol to regulate emotions. Pre- and postassessment ratings of stress, urge to harm self, urge to use drugs/alcohol, and intent to harm self were compared and strategies to manage increased suicide risk following screening interviews were implemented, as indicated. RESULTS: In both studies, average postassessment ratings were significantly lower than pre-assessment. A minority of participants reported higher ratings on one or more domains; however, following more thorough suicide risk assessment, risk was appropriately managed by providing low-level interventions (e.g., validation). CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk in research involving community participants can be managed by using appropriate risk protocols.
OBJECTIVE: Suicide prediction, prevention, and intervention are urgent research areas. One barrier for research with high-risk populations is limited resources to manage risk in a research setting. We describe using the University of Washington Risk Assessment Protocol (UWRAP) to assess and manage suicide risk during phone-administered eligibility assessments in two clinical trials. METHOD: Study 1 (N = 151) recruited suicidal adults who were not engaged in mental health treatment and Study 2 (N = 135) recruited suicidal adults who used alcohol to regulate emotions. Pre- and postassessment ratings of stress, urge to harm self, urge to use drugs/alcohol, and intent to harm self were compared and strategies to manage increased suicide risk following screening interviews were implemented, as indicated. RESULTS: In both studies, average postassessment ratings were significantly lower than pre-assessment. A minority of participants reported higher ratings on one or more domains; however, following more thorough suicide risk assessment, risk was appropriately managed by providing low-level interventions (e.g., validation). CONCLUSIONS: Suicide risk in research involving community participants can be managed by using appropriate risk protocols.
Authors: Joseph C Franklin; Jessica D Ribeiro; Kathryn R Fox; Kate H Bentley; Evan M Kleiman; Xieyining Huang; Katherine M Musacchio; Adam C Jaroszewski; Bernard P Chang; Matthew K Nock Journal: Psychol Bull Date: 2016-11-14 Impact factor: 17.737
Authors: Mary Kate Law; R Michael Furr; Elizabeth Mayfield Arnold; Malek Mneimne; Caroline Jaquett; William Fleeson Journal: Psychol Assess Date: 2015-04-20
Authors: Jessica D Ribeiro; Peter M Gutierrez; Thomas E Joiner; Ronald C Kessler; Maria V Petukhova; Nancy A Sampson; Murray B Stein; Robert J Ursano; Matthew K Nock Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2017-04