ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Comparing structured versus unstructured suicide risk assessment across health professionals and the general population: a vignette-based study protocol (CARE).
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Suicide risk assessment is a complex clinical task characterized by substantial variability in judgment and low predictive accuracy, even among experienced clinicians. Standardized instruments such as the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) have improved the structure of assessments, yet inter-rater agreement remains limited, particularly for intermediate risk categories. Moreover, insufficient suicide assessment training among healthcare professionals and widespread misconceptions about suicide in the general population further compromise the accuracy and consistency of risk estimates. The CARE study aims to address these gaps by examining variability in suicide risk estimates and evaluating whether brief suicide assessment training and the use of the C-SSRS can enhance agreement across different groups and over time. Method: The study employs a vignette-based randomized experimental design to directly compare suicide risk estimates across ten participant groups, including mental health professionals, other healthcare workers, university students, and individuals without clinical backgrounds. At baseline, participants will be randomly assigned to an experimental condition involving brief training and the use of the C-SSRS or to a non-experimental condition requiring risk estimates based solely on subjective impressions and/or clinical experience. Each participant will evaluate six vignettes representing low, moderate, and high suicide risk. After two weeks, participants will complete a follow-up assessment with six additional vignettes to examine within-person consistency. Primary outcomes include between-group and within-subject discrepancies in risk estimates, while secondary outcomes focus on differences between C-SSRS and non-C-SSRS conditions. Discussion: The CARE study will provide one of the most comprehensive vignette-based evaluations of suicide risk assessment across healthcare professionals and laypeople. Findings may inform targeted training, support the integration of standardized tools, and guide public health strategies aimed at improving early recognition and consistent evaluation of suicide risk.
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.