Toward a Standardized Suicide Risk Assessment in Psychotic Disorders: A Delphi Study With Mental Health Experts: Vers une évaluation standardisée du risque de suicide chez les personnes atteintes de troubles psychotiques : étude Delphi auprès d'experts en santé mentale.

IF 4.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Félix Diotte, Christine Genest, Hugo Thomas, Tania Lecomte
{"title":"Toward a Standardized Suicide Risk Assessment in Psychotic Disorders: A Delphi Study With Mental Health Experts: Vers une évaluation standardisée du risque de suicide chez les personnes atteintes de troubles psychotiques : étude Delphi auprès d'experts en santé mentale.","authors":"Félix Diotte, Christine Genest, Hugo Thomas, Tania Lecomte","doi":"10.1177/07067437261425026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Individuals with psychotic disorders face an elevated risk of suicide, yet current assessment tools often lack adaptations for this population's unique clinical realities. No standardized guidelines exist specifically for assessing suicide risk in psychosis, contributing to variability in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A two-round Delphi survey was conducted with 42 professionals specializing in suicide prevention or psychotic disorders. Participants rated the relevance of 100 items related to suicide risk assessment and potential systemic facilitators. The top 35 items from the first round were retained for further prioritization in the second round. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze consensus levels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Only eight out of 29 systemic factors received strong support, mostly related to the availability of practical tools and structural supports. Of the 71 risk assessment items, 35 surpassed the 4.25/5 relevance threshold. Highest consensus was found for items related to suicidal ideation and planning, such as intent, method, and access to means. Protective factors were also endorsed, while psychological/internal states (e.g., burdensomeness) were rated less relevant.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Findings underscore clinicians' emphasis on immediate risk and practical tools over abstract internal states. Results advocate for developing standardized, population-specific assessment protocols that balance risk and protective factors in individuals with a psychotic disorder.</p>","PeriodicalId":55283,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie","volume":" ","pages":"449-457"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12956615/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Psychiatry-Revue Canadienne De Psychiatrie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07067437261425026","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Individuals with psychotic disorders face an elevated risk of suicide, yet current assessment tools often lack adaptations for this population's unique clinical realities. No standardized guidelines exist specifically for assessing suicide risk in psychosis, contributing to variability in clinical practice.

Methods: A two-round Delphi survey was conducted with 42 professionals specializing in suicide prevention or psychotic disorders. Participants rated the relevance of 100 items related to suicide risk assessment and potential systemic facilitators. The top 35 items from the first round were retained for further prioritization in the second round. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze consensus levels.

Results: Only eight out of 29 systemic factors received strong support, mostly related to the availability of practical tools and structural supports. Of the 71 risk assessment items, 35 surpassed the 4.25/5 relevance threshold. Highest consensus was found for items related to suicidal ideation and planning, such as intent, method, and access to means. Protective factors were also endorsed, while psychological/internal states (e.g., burdensomeness) were rated less relevant.

Discussion: Findings underscore clinicians' emphasis on immediate risk and practical tools over abstract internal states. Results advocate for developing standardized, population-specific assessment protocols that balance risk and protective factors in individuals with a psychotic disorder.

迈向精神疾病标准化自杀风险评估:Delphi与精神健康专家的研究:迈向精神疾病患者自杀风险的标准化评估:Delphi对精神健康专家的研究。
精神障碍患者面临较高的自杀风险,但目前的评估工具往往缺乏适应这一人群独特的临床现实。目前还没有标准的指导方针专门用于评估精神病患者的自杀风险,这导致了临床实践的可变性。方法对42名自杀预防或精神障碍专业人员进行两轮德尔菲调查。参与者对100个与自杀风险评估和潜在的系统性促进因素相关的项目进行相关性评分。在第一轮中排名前35位的项目将在第二轮中进一步优先考虑。采用描述性统计分析共识水平。结果29个系统因素中只有8个得到了强有力的支持,主要与实用工具和结构支持的可用性有关。71个风险评估项目中,有35个超过了4.25/5的相关阈值。在与自杀意念和计划有关的项目中,如意图、方法和获取手段,发现了最高的共识。保护因素也被认可,而心理/内部状态(例如,负担)被认为不太相关。讨论结果强调临床医生对即时风险和实用工具的重视,而不是抽象的内部状态。结果提倡制定标准化的、针对特定人群的评估方案,以平衡精神障碍患者的风险因素和保护因素。
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
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
2.50%
发文量
69
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Established in 1956, The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry (The CJP) has been keeping psychiatrists up-to-date on the latest research for nearly 60 years. The CJP provides a forum for psychiatry and mental health professionals to share their findings with researchers and clinicians. The CJP includes peer-reviewed scientific articles analyzing ongoing developments in Canadian and international psychiatry.
×
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
小红书