[One goal, two approaches: the theoretical and practical dilemmas of suicide risk screening].

Q4 Medicine
Psychiatria Hungarica Pub Date : 2021-01-01
Márk Bérdi
{"title":"[One goal, two approaches: the theoretical and practical dilemmas of suicide risk screening].","authors":"Márk Bérdi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is no single easy way of suicide risk assessment. Although more and more theories try to describe sui - cide behavior, our scales struggle with severe psychometric limitations. While quantitative psychometric scales stand on a theoretically firm basis, their sensitivity is poor; (semi)structured, qualitative interviews are systematic and com - prehensive but costly and time-consuming. Interviews, compared to scales, also represent a new approach in suicide risk assessment. In this approach, among other things, expanding clinicians' knowledge about suicide, the narrative approach of a suicide crisis and suicide attempt, and a more specified formulation of the risk level and indicated intervention are central. Following the theoretical part of the paper, I will describe two assessment tools that represent the quantitative and qualitative approaches, respectively. I would like to argue that both short psychometric scales and systematic interviews have their salient role in different areas of clinical practice. Systematic interviews could play an important role in postgraduate education as with their help the approach to suicide risk evaluation as a process can be conveyed to professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":35063,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatria Hungarica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatria Hungarica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is no single easy way of suicide risk assessment. Although more and more theories try to describe sui - cide behavior, our scales struggle with severe psychometric limitations. While quantitative psychometric scales stand on a theoretically firm basis, their sensitivity is poor; (semi)structured, qualitative interviews are systematic and com - prehensive but costly and time-consuming. Interviews, compared to scales, also represent a new approach in suicide risk assessment. In this approach, among other things, expanding clinicians' knowledge about suicide, the narrative approach of a suicide crisis and suicide attempt, and a more specified formulation of the risk level and indicated intervention are central. Following the theoretical part of the paper, I will describe two assessment tools that represent the quantitative and qualitative approaches, respectively. I would like to argue that both short psychometric scales and systematic interviews have their salient role in different areas of clinical practice. Systematic interviews could play an important role in postgraduate education as with their help the approach to suicide risk evaluation as a process can be conveyed to professionals.

[一个目标,两种方法:自杀风险筛查的理论和实践困境]。
没有单一简单的自杀风险评估方法。尽管越来越多的理论试图描述自杀行为,但我们的量表受到严重的心理测量限制。定量心理测量量表理论基础牢固,但其敏感性较差;(半)结构化的定性访谈是系统和全面的,但成本高,耗时长。与量表相比,访谈也代表了自杀风险评估的一种新方法。在这种方法中,除其他事项外,扩展临床医生关于自杀的知识,自杀危机和自杀企图的叙述方法,以及更具体的风险水平和指示干预的制定是核心。在本文的理论部分之后,我将分别描述两种代表定量和定性方法的评估工具。我想说的是,短心理测量量表和系统访谈在临床实践的不同领域都有其突出的作用。系统访谈可以在研究生教育中发挥重要作用,因为在他们的帮助下,自杀风险评估的方法可以作为一个过程传达给专业人员。
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
Psychiatria Hungarica
Psychiatria Hungarica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信