急诊科同伴递送的书面与电子自杀安全计划

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Ronald G Thompson, Samuel Mullinax, Robert DeMonte, Angie Waliski, Michael P Wilson
{"title":"急诊科同伴递送的书面与电子自杀安全计划","authors":"Ronald G Thompson, Samuel Mullinax, Robert DeMonte, Angie Waliski, Michael P Wilson","doi":"10.1027/0227-5910/a001019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and safety planning is a best practice to reduce the risk of suicide. It is currently unknown if electronic safety planning with a phone app results in effective safety planning compared to paper versions. <i>Aims:</i> To evaluate electronic safety planning vs. a paper safety plan in the ED setting. <i>Methods:</i> A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in which 30 participants were randomized 1:1 into traditional paper safety planning versus safety planning on a phone app (My3). Outcomes of interest included safety plan completeness, safety plan quality, and return ED visits within 3 months. <i>Findings/Results:</i> Despite taking less time to complete, paper safety planning was more complete than electronic safety planning. There were no significant differences in quality or return ED visits within 3 months. <i>Limitations:</i> This study was limited to a small sample size by our local IRB. <i>Conclusions:</i> Given that plan completeness has previously shown mixed associations with clinical outcomes, further research is needed to refine and evaluate electronic formats.</p>","PeriodicalId":47943,"journal":{"name":"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"278-284"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Peer-Delivered Written Versus Electronic Suicide Safety Planning in the Emergency Department.\",\"authors\":\"Ronald G Thompson, Samuel Mullinax, Robert DeMonte, Angie Waliski, Michael P Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/0227-5910/a001019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and safety planning is a best practice to reduce the risk of suicide. It is currently unknown if electronic safety planning with a phone app results in effective safety planning compared to paper versions. <i>Aims:</i> To evaluate electronic safety planning vs. a paper safety plan in the ED setting. <i>Methods:</i> A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in which 30 participants were randomized 1:1 into traditional paper safety planning versus safety planning on a phone app (My3). Outcomes of interest included safety plan completeness, safety plan quality, and return ED visits within 3 months. <i>Findings/Results:</i> Despite taking less time to complete, paper safety planning was more complete than electronic safety planning. There were no significant differences in quality or return ED visits within 3 months. <i>Limitations:</i> This study was limited to a small sample size by our local IRB. <i>Conclusions:</i> Given that plan completeness has previously shown mixed associations with clinical outcomes, further research is needed to refine and evaluate electronic formats.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"278-284\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a001019\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/8/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a001019","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自杀是美国死亡的主要原因之一,安全规划是减少自杀风险的最佳做法。与纸质版本的安全规划相比,手机应用程序的电子安全规划是否有效,目前尚不清楚。目的:评估电子安全计划与纸质安全计划在急诊科的应用。方法:进行了一项随机对照试验,其中30名参与者按1:1的比例随机分为传统纸质安全规划和手机应用程序(My3)安全规划两组。结果包括安全计划的完整性、安全计划的质量和3个月内的急诊回访。发现/结果:尽管完成纸质安全规划所需时间更少,但纸质安全规划比电子安全规划更完整。3个月内的质量和回访没有显著差异。局限性:本研究被我们当地的IRB限制在一个小样本量。结论:鉴于计划完整性先前显示与临床结果的混合关联,需要进一步的研究来完善和评估电子格式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Peer-Delivered Written Versus Electronic Suicide Safety Planning in the Emergency Department.

Background: Suicide is one of the leading causes of death in the United States, and safety planning is a best practice to reduce the risk of suicide. It is currently unknown if electronic safety planning with a phone app results in effective safety planning compared to paper versions. Aims: To evaluate electronic safety planning vs. a paper safety plan in the ED setting. Methods: A pilot randomized controlled trial was conducted in which 30 participants were randomized 1:1 into traditional paper safety planning versus safety planning on a phone app (My3). Outcomes of interest included safety plan completeness, safety plan quality, and return ED visits within 3 months. Findings/Results: Despite taking less time to complete, paper safety planning was more complete than electronic safety planning. There were no significant differences in quality or return ED visits within 3 months. Limitations: This study was limited to a small sample size by our local IRB. Conclusions: Given that plan completeness has previously shown mixed associations with clinical outcomes, further research is needed to refine and evaluate electronic formats.

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
5.10
自引率
6.70%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: A must for all who need to keep up on the latest findings from both basic research and practical experience in the fields of suicide prevention and crisis intervention! This well-established periodical’s reputation for publishing important articles on suicidology and crisis intervention from around the world is being further enhanced with the move to 6 issues per year (previously 4) in 2010. But over and above its scientific reputation, Crisis also publishes potentially life-saving information for all those involved in crisis intervention and suicide prevention, making it important reading for clinicians, counselors, hotlines, and crisis intervention centers.
×
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