ArticleBMC psychiatry2026
Suicide risk and REDCap: facilitating clinical trial inclusion.
Article in BMC 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundConsidering increased rates of suicide, efforts have been focused on facilitating mental health research specifically dedicated to decreasing deaths by intentional self-harm. At the same time, notable suicide risk among those without identified mental health conditions highlight the importance of including such individuals in trials for a wide range of health conditions. To encourage enrollment of those at intermediate/high risk for suicide in both suicide prevention and more general health-related clinical trial research, a feasible and transferable strategy is needed. Such a strategy is outlined within this manuscript.
methodsThe authors used Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), as well as validated measures, to monitor suicide risk among individuals participating in two clinical trials (Facilitating Assessment of At-Risk Sailors using Technology [FAAST]; Implementing Computerized Cognitive Behavioral Therapies [cCBT] for Suicide Prevention and Depression among At-Risk Rural and Urban Veterans). Individuals whose responses passed a predetermined threshold triggered an automated clinical alert, which resulted in clinical outreach by members of the study team who were licensed mental health providers. Descriptive data (e.g., number of outreaches, outreach attempt at which contact was made, number of individuals never reached) from each of these studies is presented in support of the feasibility of this approach.
resultsDuring the FAAST trial, there were 55 instances in which a participant's response met the clinical threshold for outreach based on responses to survey data (across 279 participants). Nearly all (n = 54 [98.2%]) of these instances resulted in a clinical outreach. In the cCBT trial, there were 200 instances (across 69 participants) in which a participant triggered a clinical alert. Outreach was triggered in 125 (62.5%) of these cases.
conclusionsMethods and findings highlight a feasible strategy for monitoring suicide risk among individuals participating in clinical trials. Use of these methods would be expected to facilitate the inclusion of individuals at intermediate and high suicide risk in a wide range of studies, while also prioritizing safety. Moreover, researchers should be encouraged to identify and disseminate methods, such as those outlined, to facilitate suicide prevention among diverse at-risk cohorts interested in engaging as study participants.
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.