Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37729121›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Developing a consensus of recovery from suicidal ideations and behaviours: A Delphi study with experts by experience.

Esmira Ropaj, Gillian Haddock, Daniel Pratt

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus Statement
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. It is linked to trial NCT06686498 (Impact of a Recovery Model-based Intervention Targeting Adult Repeat Suicide Attempters), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT06686498 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Impact of a Recovery Model-based Intervention Targeting Adult Repeat Suicide Attempters: a Transformative Mixed Evaluation

TypeinterventionalSponsorOriana Arellano FaúndezRan2024 to 2025Enrolled20ConditionsSuicidal Ideation, Suicidal Ideation and BehaviorsArmsIllness Management and Recovery adapted to suicidal behavior (IMR-ACS)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Esmira RopajDivision of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2906-5612
Gillian HaddockDivision of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
Daniel PrattDivision of Psychology & Mental Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, School of Health Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding recovery in mental health has received significant attention and consequently, recovery has been incorporated into health policy across many countries in the Global North. In comparison, the concept of 'recovery' from suicidal thoughts and behaviours has received little attention. However, the few studies in this area appear to suggest that recovery is a complex and an idiosyncratic process with many contributing factors. This can present a challenge for clinicians and services seeking to become more recovery focused. Thus, it seems of importance to develop a consensus on how recovery from suicidal thoughts and behaviours is conceptualised.

aimThe study aimed to use the Delphi design to establish a consensus of how recovery is defined by those with lived experience of suicidal thoughts and behaviours. The Delphi method draws on the expertise of a panel, often involving clinicians, researchers and lived experience experts to develop consensus over a topic by inviting them to rate the importance of, often a series of statements to a given topic area.

methodLived experience experts were asked to complete two rounds of questionnaires distributed online to capture their views on recovery.

resultsA total of 196 individuals gave their views on the first round of the study and 97 gave their views on the second round. A final list of 110 statements was developed that 80% or more of participants defined as essential or important. Statements covered items that were important in defining, facilitation and hindering the process of recovery.

conclusionFindings are consistent with the wider literature that suggests that recovery is an idiosyncratic process, but with many commonly shared features. Here we also show that a comprehensive definition of recovery must include factors that hinder the process of recovery. Implications and recommendations for practice, policy development and future research are discussed.

Indexed as

Health PolicySuicidal IdeationDelphi TechniqueHumansMental Health

Identifiers

PMID37729121
PMCPMC10511083

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.