Literature DB >> 33729432

Accuracy Requirements for Cost-effective Suicide Risk Prediction Among Primary Care Patients in the US.

Eric L Ross1,2,3, Kelly L Zuromski4, Ben Y Reis5, Matthew K Nock4, Ronald C Kessler6, Jordan W Smoller2,7.   

Abstract

Importance: Several statistical models for predicting suicide risk have been developed, but how accurate such models must be to warrant implementation in clinical practice is not known. Objective: To identify threshold values of sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value that a suicide risk prediction method must attain to cost-effectively target a suicide risk reduction intervention to high-risk individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This economic evaluation incorporated published data on suicide epidemiology, the health care and societal costs of suicide, and the costs and efficacy of suicide risk reduction interventions into a novel decision analytic model. The model projected suicide-related health economic outcomes over a lifetime horizon among a population of US adults with a primary care physician. Data analysis was performed from September 19, 2019, to July 5, 2020. Interventions: Two possible interventions were delivered to individuals at high predicted risk: active contact and follow-up (ACF; relative risk of suicide attempt, 0.83; annual health care cost, $96) and cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT; relative risk of suicide attempt, 0.47; annual health care cost, $1088). Main Outcomes and Measures: Fatal and nonfatal suicide attempts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), health care sector costs and societal costs (in 2016 US dollars), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) (with ICERs ≤$150 000 per QALY designated cost-effective).
Results: With a specificity of 95% and a sensitivity of 25%, primary care-based suicide risk prediction could reduce suicide death rates by 0.5 per 100 000 person-years (if used to target ACF) or 1.6 per 100 000 person-years (if used to target CBT) from a baseline of 15.3 per 100 000 person-years. To be cost-effective from a health care sector perspective at a specificity of 95%, a risk prediction method would need to have a sensitivity of 17.0% or greater (95% CI, 7.4%-37.3%) if used to target ACF and 35.7% or greater (95% CI, 23.1%-60.3%) if used to target CBT. To achieve cost-effectiveness, ACF required positive predictive values of 0.8% for predicting suicide attempt and 0.07% for predicting suicide death; CBT required values of 1.7% for suicide attempt and 0.2% for suicide death. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that with sufficient accuracy, statistical suicide risk prediction models can provide good health economic value in the US. Several existing suicide risk prediction models exceed the accuracy thresholds identified in this analysis and thus may warrant pilot implementation in US health care systems.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33729432      PMCID: PMC7970389          DOI: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2021.0089

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Psychiatry        ISSN: 2168-622X            Impact factor:   21.596


  8 in total

1.  Comparing the predictive value of screening to the use of electronic health record data for detecting future suicidal thoughts and behavior in an urban pediatric emergency department: A preliminary analysis.

Authors:  Emily E Haroz; Christopher Kitchen; Paul S Nestadt; Holly C Wilcox; Jordan E DeVylder; Hadi Kharrazi
Journal:  Suicide Life Threat Behav       Date:  2021-09-13

2.  Integration of Face-to-Face Screening With Real-time Machine Learning to Predict Risk of Suicide Among Adults.

Authors:  Drew Wilimitis; Robert W Turer; Michael Ripperger; Allison B McCoy; Sarah H Sperry; Elliot M Fielstein; Troy Kurz; Colin G Walsh
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

Review 3.  Improving Suicide Prevention in Primary Care for Differing Levels of Behavioral Health Integration: A Review.

Authors:  Margaret Spottswood; Christopher T Lim; Dimitry Davydow; Hsiang Huang
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-05-27

4.  Prediction of Suicide Attempts Using Clinician Assessment, Patient Self-report, and Electronic Health Records.

Authors:  Matthew K Nock; Alexander J Millner; Eric L Ross; Chris J Kennedy; Maha Al-Suwaidi; Yuval Barak-Corren; Victor M Castro; Franchesca Castro-Ramirez; Tess Lauricella; Nicole Murman; Maria Petukhova; Suzanne A Bird; Ben Reis; Jordan W Smoller; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-01-04

5.  Open questions and research gaps for monitoring and updating AI-enabled tools in clinical settings.

Authors:  Sharon E Davis; Colin G Walsh; Michael E Matheny
Journal:  Front Digit Health       Date:  2022-09-02

6.  Development and validation of the Durham Risk Score for estimating suicide attempt risk: A prospective cohort analysis.

Authors:  Nathan A Kimbrel; Jean C Beckham; Patrick S Calhoun; Bryann B DeBeer; Terence M Keane; Daniel J Lee; Brian P Marx; Eric C Meyer; Sandra B Morissette; Eric B Elbogen
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 11.613

7.  Implementing Machine Learning Models for Suicide Risk Prediction in Clinical Practice: Focus Group Study With Hospital Providers.

Authors:  Kate H Bentley; Kelly L Zuromski; Rebecca G Fortgang; Emily M Madsen; Daniel Kessler; Hyunjoon Lee; Matthew K Nock; Ben Y Reis; Victor M Castro; Jordan W Smoller
Journal:  JMIR Form Res       Date:  2022-03-11

8.  Predicting suicide attempts among U.S. Army soldiers after leaving active duty using information available before leaving active duty: results from the Study to Assess Risk and Resilience in Servicemembers-Longitudinal Study (STARRS-LS).

Authors:  Ian H Stanley; Carol Chu; Sarah M Gildea; Irving H Hwang; Andrew J King; Chris J Kennedy; Alex Luedtke; Brian P Marx; Robert O'Brien; Maria V Petukhova; Nancy A Sampson; Dawne Vogt; Murray B Stein; Robert J Ursano; Ronald C Kessler
Journal:  Mol Psychiatry       Date:  2022-01-20       Impact factor: 13.437

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.