ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2023
Lived experience perspectives guiding improvements to the Systematic Tailored Assessment for Responding to Suicidality protocol.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-producing a peer-led health conversation tool for the health services workforce to facilitate safer use of anabolic-androgenic steroids.Harm reduction journal · 2025Article
- Informing Suicide Risk Assessment Practices of High-Risk Preteens: Qualitative Insights from Youth and Caregivers.Evidence-based practice in child and adolescent mental health · 2025Article
- Lived Experience Participation in Suicide Prevention Activities in Australia, a Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Determining the future role of clinical practice guidelines: The experience of Australia and New Zealand.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Suicide risk assessment protocols have traditionally been developed by clinical or research experts in suicidology, with little formal involvement of those with a lived experience of suicide. This study broadly aimed to seek lived experience perspectives of the Systematic Tailored Assessment for Responding to Suicidality (STARS) protocol A further aim was to elicit lived experience suggestions for wording and language used in the existing items within sections of the STARS protocol (STARS-p). Method: Participants were 33 adults (Female = 64%) with a lived experience of suicide, who attended a virtual research workshop at the National Lived Experience of Suicide Summit (2021). After being educated about STARS-p, participants provided their overall perceptions of STARS-p as well as suggestions for rewording and language use across the sections of STARS-p. Their responses were gathered using a virtual online platform for live electronic data collection. A three-phase process of qualitative content analysis was used, engaging both inductive and deductive approaches to explore study aims one and two, respectively. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research was followed to enhance quality of reporting. Results: Qualitative content analysis of participants' views of the STARS-p reflected three main categories, namely, STARS philosophy; What STARS aspires to; and Continuity of care and meeting needs. Responses characterized participants' perceptions of the core purpose of STARS-p and ways for refining or adapting it to suit diverse needs and settings. Based on deductive content analysis, suggested modifications to wording of items and additional items to extend sections were identified. Conclusion: The study yielded novel perspectives from those with a lived experience of suicide, which will inform improvements to the next edition of STARS-p. The STARS training (required for licensed use of the protocol) will be updated accordingly, in line with these results.
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.