Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36730243›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

How is suicide risk assessed in healthcare settings in the UK? A systematic scoping review.

Sophia E Fedorowicz, Robert C Dempsey, Naomi Ellis, Elliott Phillips, Christopher Gidlow

Open access · goldFull text readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sophia E FedorowiczCentre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-6636-2459
Robert C DempseyFaculty of Health and Education, Department of Psychology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6477-2363
Naomi EllisCentre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Elliott PhillipsCentre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Christopher GidlowCentre for Health and Development, Staffordshire University, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
University of Staffordshire · GBManchester Metropolitan University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A high proportion of people contact healthcare services in the 12 months prior to death by suicide. Identifying people at high-risk for suicide is therefore a key concern for healthcare services. Whilst there is extensive research on the validity and reliability of suicide risk assessment tools, there remains a lack of understanding of how suicide risk assessments are conducted by healthcare staff in practice. This scoping review examined the literature on how suicide risk assessments are conducted and experienced by healthcare practitioners, patients, carers, relatives, and friends of people who have died by suicide in the UK. Literature searches were conducted on key databases using a pre-defined search strategy pre-registered with the Open Science Framework and following the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews guidelines. Eligible for inclusion were original research, written in English, exploring how suicide risk is assessed in the UK, related to administering or undergoing risk assessment for suicide, key concepts relating to those experiences, or directly exploring the experiences of administering or undergoing assessment. Eighteen studies were included in the final sample. Information was charted including study setting and design, sampling strategy, sample characteristics, and findings. A narrative account of the literature is provided. There was considerable variation regarding how suicide risk assessments are conducted in practice. There was evidence of a lack of risk assessment training, low awareness of suicide prevention guidance, and a lack of evidence relating to patient perspectives of suicide risk assessments. Increased inclusion of patient perspectives of suicide risk assessment is needed to gain understanding of how the process can be improved. Limited time and difficulty in starting an open discussion about suicide with patients were noted as barriers to successful assessment. Implications for practice are discussed.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareSuicideHumansReproducibility of ResultsSuicide PreventionUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID36730243
PMCPMC10045566
OpenAlexW4318916938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read47
reference markers read21
identifiers read4
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.