ArticlePsychological services2023
Perceived clinical utility of the suicide crisis syndrome: A multisite pilot study.
Article in Psychological services, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Suicide Crisis Syndrome: examining supporting evidence and barriers to diagnostic validity.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Perceived usefulness in the clinical setting is important in the implementation of novel constructs and assessments. The suicide crisis syndrome (SCS) has been proposed and validated as a theoretical framework for assessing acute suicide risk, but clinicians' perceptions of the SCS have not yet been examined. In this study, we evaluated perceived utility of the SCS across several provider locations to assess its perceived value as a clinical tool. A sample of 47 practitioners across three sites who had received education about, but no implementation of, the SCS, and a separate sample of 52 practitioners at a site that had systematically implemented the SCS, completed a survey assessing its feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, incremental helpfulness, and overall clinical utility. In both samples, clinicians reported favorable ratings for feasibility, appropriateness, acceptability, incremental helpfulness, and overall clinical utility. In Sample 1, clinicians with previous experience using the SCS reported significantly higher ratings for all categories except incremental helpfulness than those without prior SCS use. In Sample 2, there were no significant differences in ratings between participants with or without prior use of SCS. Comparison of the two samples found no significant differences in all categories except acceptability, as those in Sample 2 showed significantly higher ratings. Regardless of implementation, clinicians reported generally favorable perceptions of the SCS, and those from the implementation sample reported significantly higher acceptability of its use. This suggests that clinicians may be supportive of the use and implementation of the SCS in clinical settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
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.