Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30206514›Full record

ArticleInternet interventions2018

Smartphone-based safety planning and self-monitoring for suicidal patients: Rationale and study protocol of the CASPAR (Continuous Assessment for Suicide Prevention And Research) study.

Chani Nuij, Wouter van Ballegooijen, Jeroen Ruwaard, Derek de Beurs, Jan Mokkenstorm, Erik van Duijn, Remco F P de Winter, Rory C O'Connor, Jan H Smit, Heleen Riper and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Internet interventions, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Chani NuijDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wouter van BallegooijenDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen RuwaardDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Derek de BeursNetherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jan MokkenstormDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Erik van DuijnDelfland Mental Health Centre, Delft, The Netherlands.
Remco F P de WinterDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rory C O'ConnorSuicidal Behaviour Research Laboratory, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Jan H SmitDepartment of Psychiatry, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Heleen RiperDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ad KerkhofDepartment of Clinical Psychology, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt remains difficult to predict and prevent suicidal behaviour, despite growing understanding of the aetiology of suicidality. Clinical guidelines recommend that health care professionals develop a safety plan in collaboration with their high-risk patients, to lower the imminent risk of suicidal behaviour. Mobile health applications provide new opportunities for safety planning, and enable daily self-monitoring of suicide-related symptoms that may enhance safety planning. This paper presents the rationale and protocol of the Continuous Assessment for Suicide Prevention And Research (CASPAR) study. The aim of the study is two-fold: to evaluate the feasibility of mobile safety planning and daily mobile self-monitoring in routine care treatment for suicidal patients, and to conduct fundamental research on suicidal processes.

methodsThe study is an adaptive single cohort design among 80 adult outpatients or day-care patients, with the main diagnosis of major depressive disorder or dysthymia, who have an increased risk for suicidal behaviours. There are three measurement points, at baseline, at 1 and 3 months after baseline. Patients are instructed to use their mobile safety plan when necessary and monitor their suicidal symptoms daily. Both these apps will be used in treatment with their clinician.

conclusionThe results from this study will provide insight into the feasibility of mobile safety planning and self-monitoring in treatment of suicidal patients. Furthermore, knowledge of the suicidal process will be enhanced, especially regarding the transition from suicidal ideation to behaviour.The study protocol is currently under revision for medical ethics approval by the medical ethics board of the Vrije Universiteit Medical centre Amsterdam (METc number 2017.512/NL62795.029.17).

Indexed as

Ecological momentary assessmentFeasibilityMobile healthSafety planningSuicide prevention

Identifiers

PMID30206514
PMCPMC6112103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.