Suicide and Self-Harm Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Prospective Research

Abstract

Objective: Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk assessment tools in predicting self-harm and suicide risk. This systematic review examines the effect of risk assessment strategies on predicting suicide and self-harm outcomes among adult healthcare service users. Method: Electronic and gray literature databases were searched for prospective research. Studies were screened and selected by independent reviewers. Quality and level of evidence assessments were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis under three categories: (1) suicide-and self-harm-related outcomes; (2) clinician assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; and (3) healthcare utilization due to self-harm or suicide. Results: Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The SAD PERSONS Scale was the most used tool. It outperformed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation in predicting hospital admissions and stay following suicide and self-harm, yet it failed to predict repeat suicide and self-harm and was not recommended for routine use. There were mixed findings relating to clinician risk assessment, with some studies recommending clinician assessment over structured tools, whilst others found that clinician assessment failed to predict future attempts and deaths. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one tool, inclusive of clinician assessment of risk, for self-harm and suicidality. The discourse around risk assessment needs to move toward a broader discussion on the safety of patients who are at risk for self-harm and/or suicide. HIGHLIGHTSThere is insufficient evidence to support using standalone risk assessment tools. There are mixed findings relating to clinician assessment of risk. Structured professional judgment is widely accepted for risk assessment.

Suicidal Ideation in the Australian Construction Industry: Prevalence and the Associations of Psychosocial Job Adversity and Adherence to Traditional Masculine Norms

“…Despite these intervention efforts, the issue remains significant and is further complicated by a distinct lack of literature and understanding regarding drivers of suicidal trajectories for this population. While there is largely widespread agreement regarding the limited predictive validity of suicide from a structured risk assessment, there is acceptance of early stages of the suicidal trajectory, namely suicidal ideation, as a useful identifier of future suicide risk [ 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. As a result, scholars suggest knowledge and mitigation of the drivers of suicidal ideation, independent from suicidal behaviours and attempts, is a key component in effective suicide prevention [ 8 , 12 ].…”

Risk of suicide in children and adolescents in the emergency department—is universal screening the answer?

“…A brief risk assessment asking about known psychosocial risk factors 20 30 can reduce the risk of false positives and enhance disposition planning. Although screening tools show good predictive validity for future suicide-related behaviour, another commonly cited limitation is the lack of data related to predictive validity for death by suicide 31. Further research is needed to determine if universal screening can reduce rising suicide rates.…”

Understanding Emergency Department Healthcare Professionals' Perspectives of Caring for Individuals in Suicidal Crisis: A Qualitative Study

“…This limited control was further exacerbated by ED staffs' limited confidence in their ability to stratify risk, which is not surprising given the complexity of suicide presentations. A 2021 systematic review of 21 studies showed that no one suicide risk assessment tool, including clinical assessment, could accurately predict the risk of future suicide behavior ( 41 ). In contrast, there is some evidence to show that greater exposure to help seekers may improve accuracy of assessed suicide risk ( 16 ), yet ED staff in this study often chose to relinquish this responsibility and defer to other ED mental health staff whom they believed were best placed to make assessment, treatment, and discharge decisions.…”