ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Clinician perspectives on the utility and acceptability of OxSATS: a qualitative study of a novel structured suicide risk assessment tool.
Article in BMJ mental health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuicide remains a leading preventable cause of death, and patients presenting with self-harm constitute a high-risk group. The Oxford Suicide Assessment Tool for Self-Harm (OxSATS) is a validated model estimating suicide risk. While its statistical performance is established, its clinical utility remains unexplored.
objectiveTo understand clinicians' views on the feasibility, acceptability and potential workflow integration of OxSATS.
methodsSemistructured interviews with 15 multidisciplinary National Health Service clinicians explored current suicide risk assessment practice, experience with structured tools and views on OxSATS. Participants applied OxSATS to standardised vignettes to simulate real-world decision-making. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
findingsClinicians valued OxSATS for its simplicity, objectivity and percentage-based outputs. OxSATS was viewed as promoting a shared language around suicide risk and supporting assessment consistency. Alignment between OxSATS estimates and clinical judgement was good. However, some clinicians perceived the tool as underestimating risk associated with violent methods. Key implementation barriers included limited scope for wider psychosocial context and potential over-reliance on the tool by inexperienced clinicians. Participants emphasised that OxSATS should complement, not replace, clinical formulation and highlighted the need for clear guidance to support adoption.
conclusionOxSATS was viewed as a promising adjunct to suicide risk assessment following self-harm. Addressing concerns around scope, interpretation of percentage risk and integration into wider suicide risk training will be key to successful implementation. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: This study highlights clinicians' interest in evidence-based adjuncts to suicide risk formulation and supports the use of probability-based models to enhance decision-making.
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.