临床医生对自杀安全计划及其实施的看法。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHIATRY
Emily E Haroz, Mira A Bajaj, Paul S Nestadt, John V Campo, Holly C Wilcox
{"title":"临床医生对自杀安全计划及其实施的看法。","authors":"Emily E Haroz, Mira A Bajaj, Paul S Nestadt, John V Campo, Holly C Wilcox","doi":"10.1080/13811118.2024.2370852","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The safety planning intervention is an evidence-based practice shown to reduce suicide risk, but implementation of high-quality safety planning has proven challenging. We aimed to understand clinician perspectives on the safety planning intervention to inform future implementation efforts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional survey of clinicians who care for patients at risk of suicide in an academic medical center asked about comfort levels and fidelity to components of the safety planning intervention and assessed implementation barriers and facilitators. We used exploratory data analysis and regression analysis to explore clinician perspectives and assess the relationship between formal training and implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-two clinicians responded to the survey. Two-thirds of participants (64.9%) endorsed using all six core elements of the safety planning intervention. Participants who reported receiving formal training in safety planning were significantly more likely to report being comfortable completing a safety plan (<i>p</i> < .001); those with higher levels of comfort were significantly more likely to endorse using all of the core elements of the safety planning intervention (<i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Training in the evidence-based safety planning intervention is associated with clinician comfort and awareness of the core elements of the intervention. Our results suggest that there are gaps in clinician training and that formal safety planning intervention training could have a positive effect on clinician comfort and treatment fidelity.</p>","PeriodicalId":8325,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Suicide Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinician Perspectives on Suicide Safety Planning and Its Implementation.\",\"authors\":\"Emily E Haroz, Mira A Bajaj, Paul S Nestadt, John V Campo, Holly C Wilcox\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13811118.2024.2370852\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The safety planning intervention is an evidence-based practice shown to reduce suicide risk, but implementation of high-quality safety planning has proven challenging. We aimed to understand clinician perspectives on the safety planning intervention to inform future implementation efforts.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This cross-sectional survey of clinicians who care for patients at risk of suicide in an academic medical center asked about comfort levels and fidelity to components of the safety planning intervention and assessed implementation barriers and facilitators. We used exploratory data analysis and regression analysis to explore clinician perspectives and assess the relationship between formal training and implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ninety-two clinicians responded to the survey. Two-thirds of participants (64.9%) endorsed using all six core elements of the safety planning intervention. Participants who reported receiving formal training in safety planning were significantly more likely to report being comfortable completing a safety plan (<i>p</i> < .001); those with higher levels of comfort were significantly more likely to endorse using all of the core elements of the safety planning intervention (<i>p</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Training in the evidence-based safety planning intervention is associated with clinician comfort and awareness of the core elements of the intervention. Our results suggest that there are gaps in clinician training and that formal safety planning intervention training could have a positive effect on clinician comfort and treatment fidelity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Suicide Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Suicide Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2370852\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Suicide Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13811118.2024.2370852","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:安全规划干预是一种循证实践,被证明可以降低自杀风险,但事实证明,实施高质量的安全规划具有挑战性。我们旨在了解临床医生对安全计划干预的看法,为今后的实施工作提供参考:这项横断面调查的对象是在一家学术医疗中心护理有自杀风险患者的临床医生,调查内容包括安全规划干预措施的舒适度和忠实度,并评估了实施障碍和促进因素。我们使用探索性数据分析和回归分析来探讨临床医生的观点,并评估正规培训与实施之间的关系:92 名临床医生对调查做出了回应。三分之二的参与者(64.9%)赞同使用安全规划干预的所有六个核心要素。接受过正规安全规划培训的参与者更有可能自如地完成安全规划(P P 结论:接受过正规安全规划培训的参与者更有可能自如地完成安全规划(P P 结论:接受过正规安全规划培训的参与者更有可能自如地完成安全规划:循证安全规划干预培训与临床医生对干预核心要素的舒适度和认知度有关。我们的研究结果表明,临床医生的培训还存在不足,而正规的安全规划干预培训可对临床医生的舒适度和治疗忠诚度产生积极影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinician Perspectives on Suicide Safety Planning and Its Implementation.

Objective: The safety planning intervention is an evidence-based practice shown to reduce suicide risk, but implementation of high-quality safety planning has proven challenging. We aimed to understand clinician perspectives on the safety planning intervention to inform future implementation efforts.

Method: This cross-sectional survey of clinicians who care for patients at risk of suicide in an academic medical center asked about comfort levels and fidelity to components of the safety planning intervention and assessed implementation barriers and facilitators. We used exploratory data analysis and regression analysis to explore clinician perspectives and assess the relationship between formal training and implementation.

Results: Ninety-two clinicians responded to the survey. Two-thirds of participants (64.9%) endorsed using all six core elements of the safety planning intervention. Participants who reported receiving formal training in safety planning were significantly more likely to report being comfortable completing a safety plan (p < .001); those with higher levels of comfort were significantly more likely to endorse using all of the core elements of the safety planning intervention (p < .001).

Conclusions: Training in the evidence-based safety planning intervention is associated with clinician comfort and awareness of the core elements of the intervention. Our results suggest that there are gaps in clinician training and that formal safety planning intervention training could have a positive effect on clinician comfort and treatment fidelity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: Archives of Suicide Research, the official journal of the International Academy of Suicide Research (IASR), is the international journal in the field of suicidology. The journal features original, refereed contributions on the study of suicide, suicidal behavior, its causes and effects, and techniques for prevention. The journal incorporates research-based and theoretical articles contributed by a diverse range of authors interested in investigating the biological, pharmacological, psychiatric, psychological, and sociological aspects of suicide.
×
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