Development and initial psychometrics of a school-based screening program to prevent adolescent suicide.

Abstract

Practice Innovations is a publication of APA Division 42 (Psychologists in Independent Practice). Published quarterly (beginning in March), PI serves practitioners by publishing clinical, practical, and research articles on current and evolving standards, practices, and methods in professional mental health practice. Designed as a cross-disciplinary publication with a multi-theoretical scope, the journal supports innovation and the highest standards of care in mental health practice. Coverage areas include population-based practice issues, procedure or technique-based practice issues, diagnosis-based practice issues, and service delivery models. PI's overarching goal is to promote the sharing of clinical and practice-based knowledge in a peer-to-peer framework.For more information, including how to submit a manuscript or subscribe to PI, visit the journal's website at www.apa.org/pubs/journals/pri.

Determining stakeholder priorities and core components for school-based identification of mental health difficulties: A Delphi study

“…Mechanisms to connect identified children to support is the critical final step in any identification program ( Dvorsky et al, 2014 ), yet details of this phase are often unreported in studies of program effectiveness ( Anderson et al, 2018 ). When such post-identification results are reported, they are not promising; previous studies show that up to one half of children identified in school-based programs do not receive further evaluation or support ( Gould et al, 2009 ; Hilt et al, 2018 ; Nemeroff et al, 2008 ). In their study of service use after school-based suicide screening, Gould et al (2009) found several barriers for accessing care among CYP who screened positive.…”

A systematic review of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of school-based identification of children and young people at risk of, or currently experiencing mental health difficulties

“…(1) Universal screening programmes Eight studies of universal screening programmes reported on rates of identification (Tisher, 1995;Jones et al, 2002;Gould et al, 2009;Robinson et al, 2010;Husky et al, 2011;Morey et al, 2015;Hilt et al, 2018). In six studies, positive screening results were verified by subsequent clinical interview conducted by MH professionals (Gould et al, 2009;Robinson et al, 2010;Husky et al, 2011;Morey et al, 2015;Hilt et al, 2018), or an existing diagnosis of MHD (Tisher, 1995), giving a reliable rate of false positives.…”

“…Although a number of studies indicated that a referral was made for students identified as being at-risk, only three studies reported numbers and uptake of referrals to specialist support (Gould et al ., 2009; Husky et al ., 2011; Hilt et al ., 2018). All three studies evaluated universal screening for risk of suicide, although referral processes and services offered varied by programme.…”

“…In contrast, following completion of a universal screening measure, all students in two other studies, regardless of risk-status, participated in a brief interview with a school counsellor. Interview outcomes indicated that screening yielded around 20% false negative results, which suggests that this method is likely to miss a significant number of students needing support (Husky et al ., 2011; Hilt et al ., 2018).…”

“…Within 6 months, 52% attended their first appointment, and within a year, 70% had successfully accessed a MH care provider (Gould et al ., 2009). Of 2022 students participating in a universal screening for suicide risk programme, 444 students were determined to be in need of MH services following screening and clinical interview (Hilt et al ., 2018). Of those identified as being at-risk, 77% were not currently in treatment.…”