自杀风险管理研究:定性评估。

IF 1.7 Q2 Social Sciences
Jen Van Tiem, Nicole L Johnson, Mark Ilgen, Tammy Walkner, Mark Flower, Kenda Steffensmeier, Erin P Finley
{"title":"自杀风险管理研究:定性评估。","authors":"Jen Van Tiem, Nicole L Johnson, Mark Ilgen, Tammy Walkner, Mark Flower, Kenda Steffensmeier, Erin P Finley","doi":"10.1080/17538068.2025.2531604","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current standards of practice for addressing suicide risk in research settings mirror clinical procedures; however, this knowledge has not been systematically translated into research settings, especially those that rely on remote data collection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used purposive sampling to identify experts who work to reduce suicide from clinical, research, administrative, and community perspectives in the United States; a majority of our participants either worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs or with Veterans through other organizations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 people. We analysed the interview data using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that existing guidance about risk management in suicide research is not sufficient for individuals working in the field. Instead, our respondents described the unique set of interviewing skills needed for managing a research interview alongside suicide risk, and the importance of developing psychological safety, both with the research participant and within the research team.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings extend previous suggestions for staff training and using universal risk assessment, and advance two additional suggestions: (1) provide guidance not only about how to conduct risk assessment, but also how to utilize prevention strategies, and (2) increase skill-building around managing conversations (e.g. qualitative interviewing) by improving communication skills in research settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":38052,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Suicide risk management in research: a qualitative assessment.\",\"authors\":\"Jen Van Tiem, Nicole L Johnson, Mark Ilgen, Tammy Walkner, Mark Flower, Kenda Steffensmeier, Erin P Finley\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17538068.2025.2531604\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Current standards of practice for addressing suicide risk in research settings mirror clinical procedures; however, this knowledge has not been systematically translated into research settings, especially those that rely on remote data collection.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used purposive sampling to identify experts who work to reduce suicide from clinical, research, administrative, and community perspectives in the United States; a majority of our participants either worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs or with Veterans through other organizations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 people. We analysed the interview data using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that existing guidance about risk management in suicide research is not sufficient for individuals working in the field. Instead, our respondents described the unique set of interviewing skills needed for managing a research interview alongside suicide risk, and the importance of developing psychological safety, both with the research participant and within the research team.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings extend previous suggestions for staff training and using universal risk assessment, and advance two additional suggestions: (1) provide guidance not only about how to conduct risk assessment, but also how to utilize prevention strategies, and (2) increase skill-building around managing conversations (e.g. qualitative interviewing) by improving communication skills in research settings.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38052,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Communication in Healthcare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Communication in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2025.2531604\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17538068.2025.2531604","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在研究环境中处理自杀风险的现行实践标准反映了临床程序;然而,这些知识尚未系统地转化为研究环境,特别是那些依赖于远程数据收集的研究环境。方法:我们采用有目的的抽样方法,从临床、研究、行政和社区的角度确定在美国致力于减少自杀的专家;我们的大多数参与者要么在退伍军人事务部工作,要么通过其他组织与退伍军人一起工作。我们对31个人进行了半结构化的采访。我们使用专题分析来分析访谈数据。结果:我们发现现有的自杀研究风险管理指导对从事该领域工作的个人来说是不够的。相反,我们的受访者描述了与自杀风险一起管理研究访谈所需的独特访谈技巧,以及与研究参与者和研究团队一起发展心理安全的重要性。结论:我们的研究结果扩展了之前对员工培训和使用通用风险评估的建议,并提出了两个额外的建议:(1)不仅指导如何进行风险评估,而且指导如何使用预防策略;(2)通过提高研究环境中的沟通技巧,加强围绕管理对话(如定性访谈)的技能建设。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Suicide risk management in research: a qualitative assessment.

Background: Current standards of practice for addressing suicide risk in research settings mirror clinical procedures; however, this knowledge has not been systematically translated into research settings, especially those that rely on remote data collection.

Methods: We used purposive sampling to identify experts who work to reduce suicide from clinical, research, administrative, and community perspectives in the United States; a majority of our participants either worked for the Department of Veterans Affairs or with Veterans through other organizations. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 31 people. We analysed the interview data using thematic analysis.

Results: We found that existing guidance about risk management in suicide research is not sufficient for individuals working in the field. Instead, our respondents described the unique set of interviewing skills needed for managing a research interview alongside suicide risk, and the importance of developing psychological safety, both with the research participant and within the research team.

Conclusions: Our findings extend previous suggestions for staff training and using universal risk assessment, and advance two additional suggestions: (1) provide guidance not only about how to conduct risk assessment, but also how to utilize prevention strategies, and (2) increase skill-building around managing conversations (e.g. qualitative interviewing) by improving communication skills in research settings.

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
Journal of Communication in Healthcare
Journal of Communication in Healthcare Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
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