Examining Alternative Treatment Settings for Adolescents With Suicidal Thoughts During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Jennifer Combs LISW, MSSA , Ping-I Lin MD, PhD , Melissa P. DelBello MD, MS , Adam C. Carle PhD, MS , Jeffrey A. Bridge PhD , David A. Axelson MD , Victor Fornari MD, MS , Vera Feuer MD , Graham J. Emslie MD , Betsy D. Kennard PsyD, ABPP , Stephen C. Porter MD, MPH, MSc , Michael T. Sorter MD , Drew Barzman MD
{"title":"Examining Alternative Treatment Settings for Adolescents With Suicidal Thoughts During the COVID-19 Pandemic","authors":"Jennifer Combs LISW, MSSA ,&nbsp;Ping-I Lin MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Melissa P. DelBello MD, MS ,&nbsp;Adam C. Carle PhD, MS ,&nbsp;Jeffrey A. Bridge PhD ,&nbsp;David A. Axelson MD ,&nbsp;Victor Fornari MD, MS ,&nbsp;Vera Feuer MD ,&nbsp;Graham J. Emslie MD ,&nbsp;Betsy D. Kennard PsyD, ABPP ,&nbsp;Stephen C. Porter MD, MPH, MSc ,&nbsp;Michael T. Sorter MD ,&nbsp;Drew Barzman MD","doi":"10.1016/j.jaacop.2024.10.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>Suicide is a leading cause of death for adolescents in the United States. Alternative settings to treat suicidal ideation (SI) are needed. Study primary objectives include evaluating the safety and effectiveness of telehealth crisis intervention services (CIS) and in-person outpatient crisis intervention clinics (OCIC) relative to the current standard of care of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. A secondary aim seeks to assess changes in suicidal ideation, and patient and parent treatment satisfaction.</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The study team, consisting of study staff at 4 sites, conducted an observational longitudinal study of patients (12-18 years of age) who were seen in the Emergency Department (ED) for suicidality and were referred to inpatient treatment, in-person OCIC, or telehealth CIS. Primary outcome data, including recurrent ED visits and hospitalizations because of SI, suicide attempts, and life satisfaction, were collected for 24 weeks. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and baseline suicidality severity scores. A total of 249 patients were enrolled.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>There were no statistically significant differences in suicide attempts, time to first suicide attempt, ED visits, hospitalizations, and life satisfaction among the 3 treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes for treatment satisfaction among the treatment groups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In this observational study, in-person OCIC and telehealth CIS did not have significantly different outcomes from the current standard of care of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. This broadens the scope of services that appear to be safe and effective for adolescents experiencing moderate suicidal thoughts. Future research using randomized controlled trials to clarify the causal effect of different interventions is warranted.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical trial registration information</h3><div>Observational Study to Compare Outcomes of Different Psychiatric Treatment of Suicidal Adolescents (Pre-START); <span><span>https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04625686</span><svg><path></path></svg></span>.</div></div><div><h3>Plain language summary</h3><div>The PreSTART study sought to explore treatment outcomes for adolescents experiencing suicidal thoughts. Inpatient treatment, outpatient crisis intervention centers, and telehealth crisis interventions were explored and compared to evaluate safety and effectiveness over a 24-week period. Results found no statistical difference in recurrent suicidal events or treatment satisfaction among the different treatments.</div></div><div><h3>Diversity Inclusion Statement</h3><div>We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73525,"journal":{"name":"JAACAP open","volume":"3 3","pages":"Pages 567-575"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAACAP open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949732924000875","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

Suicide is a leading cause of death for adolescents in the United States. Alternative settings to treat suicidal ideation (SI) are needed. Study primary objectives include evaluating the safety and effectiveness of telehealth crisis intervention services (CIS) and in-person outpatient crisis intervention clinics (OCIC) relative to the current standard of care of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. A secondary aim seeks to assess changes in suicidal ideation, and patient and parent treatment satisfaction.

Method

The study team, consisting of study staff at 4 sites, conducted an observational longitudinal study of patients (12-18 years of age) who were seen in the Emergency Department (ED) for suicidality and were referred to inpatient treatment, in-person OCIC, or telehealth CIS. Primary outcome data, including recurrent ED visits and hospitalizations because of SI, suicide attempts, and life satisfaction, were collected for 24 weeks. All analyses were adjusted for age, sex, and baseline suicidality severity scores. A total of 249 patients were enrolled.

Results

There were no statistically significant differences in suicide attempts, time to first suicide attempt, ED visits, hospitalizations, and life satisfaction among the 3 treatment arms. There was no statistically significant difference in outcomes for treatment satisfaction among the treatment groups.

Conclusion

In this observational study, in-person OCIC and telehealth CIS did not have significantly different outcomes from the current standard of care of inpatient psychiatric hospitalization. This broadens the scope of services that appear to be safe and effective for adolescents experiencing moderate suicidal thoughts. Future research using randomized controlled trials to clarify the causal effect of different interventions is warranted.

Clinical trial registration information

Observational Study to Compare Outcomes of Different Psychiatric Treatment of Suicidal Adolescents (Pre-START); https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04625686.

Plain language summary

The PreSTART study sought to explore treatment outcomes for adolescents experiencing suicidal thoughts. Inpatient treatment, outpatient crisis intervention centers, and telehealth crisis interventions were explored and compared to evaluate safety and effectiveness over a 24-week period. Results found no statistical difference in recurrent suicidal events or treatment satisfaction among the different treatments.

Diversity Inclusion Statement

We worked to ensure that the study questionnaires were prepared in an inclusive way. The author list of this paper includes contributors from the location and/or community where the research was conducted who participated in the data collection, design, analysis, and/or interpretation of the work.

Abstract Image

研究在COVID-19大流行期间有自杀念头的青少年的替代治疗方案
在美国,自杀是青少年死亡的主要原因。需要其他治疗自杀意念(SI)的方法。研究的主要目标包括评估远程医疗危机干预服务(CIS)和面对面门诊危机干预诊所(OCIC)相对于目前精神科住院病人的护理标准的安全性和有效性。第二个目的是评估自杀意念的变化,以及患者和家长对治疗的满意度。方法研究小组由4个地点的研究人员组成,对在急诊科(ED)就诊并转介到住院治疗、现场OCIC或远程医疗CIS的12-18岁患者进行了一项观察性纵向研究。主要结局数据,包括因SI、自杀企图和生活满意度而复发的急诊科就诊和住院,收集了24周。所有分析均根据年龄、性别和基线自杀严重程度评分进行调整。共有249名患者入组。结果3个治疗组在自杀企图、第一次自杀企图时间、急诊科就诊次数、住院次数和生活满意度方面差异均无统计学意义。治疗组间治疗满意度结果差异无统计学意义。结论在这项观察性研究中,现场OCIC和远程医疗CIS与目前精神科住院患者的护理标准没有显著差异。这扩大了对有中度自杀念头的青少年似乎安全有效的服务范围。未来的研究需要使用随机对照试验来澄清不同干预措施的因果关系。自杀青少年不同精神治疗(Pre-START)效果比较观察性研究https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04625686.Plain语言摘要PreSTART研究旨在探索有自杀念头的青少年的治疗结果。在24周的时间里,对住院治疗、门诊危机干预中心和远程医疗危机干预进行了探讨和比较,以评估安全性和有效性。结果发现,不同治疗方法在自杀事件复发及治疗满意度方面无统计学差异。多样性包容性声明我们努力确保以包容性的方式准备研究问卷。本文的作者列表包括来自研究开展地和/或社区的贡献者,他们参与了数据收集、设计、分析和/或解释工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAACAP open
JAACAP open Psychiatry and Mental Health
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信