ArticleGeneral hospital psychiatry
Lethal means counseling for suicide prevention: Views of emergency department clinicians.
Article in General hospital psychiatry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Stakeholder perceptions of lethal means safety counseling: A qualitative systematic review.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Pooled it
- Patient and Clinician Perspectives of a Standardized Question About Firearm Access to Support Suicide Prevention: A Qualitative Study.JAMA health forum · 2022Article
- Variation in Left Ventricular Assist Device Postdischarge Caregiver Requirements: Results From a Mixed-Methods Study With Equity Implications.Circulation. Heart failure · 2022Article
- "Lock to Live" for firearm and medication safety: Feasibility and acceptability of a suicide prevention tool in a learning healthcare system.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- "Lock and Protect": Development of a Digital Decision Aid to Support Lethal Means Counseling in Parents of Suicidal Youth.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveLethal means safety - counseling and guidance about reducing access to home firearms and medications - is recommended for emergency department patients at risk of suicide. Decision aids are tools that can facilitate potentially difficult decisions by incorporating personal preferences and values. The present study evaluates clinician perceptions about the implementation and utility of "Lock to Live," a lethal means safety decision aid.
methodOne-on-one qualitative interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 15) at three large emergency departments. Interviewees were asked to evaluate the "Lock to Live" decision tool and its potential implementation and utilization in the emergency department. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Data were coded via thematic analysis; two coders developed a shared codebook iteratively with high interrater reliability.
resultsPerspectives on the tool fell into three domains: (1) patients (use with patients and families), (2) clinicians, and (3) emergency department system. Interviewees noted that the tool had numerous potential benefits but that its uptake and effectiveness would depend on clinicians' perceptions on its utility, time constraints, and integration into workflow. Addressable concerns related to relationship to other resources, fit within emergency department workflow, and clarification about which emergency department clinician types should use the tool.
conclusions"Lock to Live" represents a promising new tool for use in suicide prevention as an aid to lethal means counseling. This qualitative study provides insights into the importance of considering the clinical environment when designing and implementing interventions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.