危机细节是否能区分与自杀有关的 911 报警结果?

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY
Katherine L O'Connell, Molly Hassler, Nicole Moreira, Ben Barnette, Anna Gilbert, Cammy Widman, Keyne C Law
{"title":"危机细节是否能区分与自杀有关的 911 报警结果?","authors":"Katherine L O'Connell, Molly Hassler, Nicole Moreira, Ben Barnette, Anna Gilbert, Cammy Widman, Keyne C Law","doi":"10.1027/0227-5910/a000921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background</i> The outcomes of calling 911 for suicide crises remain largely unexplored. <i>Aims</i> To investigate how characteristics of individuals in a suicidal crisis (e.g., age, gender identity, help-seeking source, means, disclosure of historical suicidality, or self-harm) may differentiate outcomes when contacting 911. <i>Method</i> The authors analyzed 1,073 Washington State Police 911 call logs, coding for characteristics and outcome (unknown, monitoring, intervention, adverse outcome). Descriptive and inferential statistics, including multinomial logistic regressions, were used to explore associations. <i>Results</i> When individuals experiencing a suicidal crisis were referred by bystander or associates' observations, there was a greater likelihood of adverse outcome. Self-referral led to a greater likelihood of intervention. Referral from the suicidal individual contacting a known associate led to a greater likelihood of monitoring. Any disclosure of means led to a greater likelihood of intervention or adverse outcomes. Positive disclosure of historical suicidality or self-harm was more likely to result in monitoring. <i>Limitations</i> The dataset was intended for operational use in acute suicidality triage rather than research purposes. <i>Conclusion</i> This study highlights the importance of supporting first responders with research to enhance their triage of people experiencing suicidal crises.</p>","PeriodicalId":47943,"journal":{"name":"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"65-73"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do Crisis Details Differentiate Suicide-Related 911 Call Outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"Katherine L O'Connell, Molly Hassler, Nicole Moreira, Ben Barnette, Anna Gilbert, Cammy Widman, Keyne C Law\",\"doi\":\"10.1027/0227-5910/a000921\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background</i> The outcomes of calling 911 for suicide crises remain largely unexplored. <i>Aims</i> To investigate how characteristics of individuals in a suicidal crisis (e.g., age, gender identity, help-seeking source, means, disclosure of historical suicidality, or self-harm) may differentiate outcomes when contacting 911. <i>Method</i> The authors analyzed 1,073 Washington State Police 911 call logs, coding for characteristics and outcome (unknown, monitoring, intervention, adverse outcome). Descriptive and inferential statistics, including multinomial logistic regressions, were used to explore associations. <i>Results</i> When individuals experiencing a suicidal crisis were referred by bystander or associates' observations, there was a greater likelihood of adverse outcome. Self-referral led to a greater likelihood of intervention. Referral from the suicidal individual contacting a known associate led to a greater likelihood of monitoring. Any disclosure of means led to a greater likelihood of intervention or adverse outcomes. Positive disclosure of historical suicidality or self-harm was more likely to result in monitoring. <i>Limitations</i> The dataset was intended for operational use in acute suicidality triage rather than research purposes. <i>Conclusion</i> This study highlights the importance of supporting first responders with research to enhance their triage of people experiencing suicidal crises.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47943,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"65-73\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"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/a000921\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/9 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/a000921","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 在自杀危机中拨打 911 的结果在很大程度上仍未得到探讨。目的 研究处于自杀危机中的个人特征(如年龄、性别认同、求助来源、手段、自杀史披露或自残)如何区分拨打 911 的结果。方法 作者分析了华盛顿州警方的 1,073 份 911 报警记录,对其特征和结果(未知、监控、干预、不良结果)进行了编码。作者使用了描述性和推论性统计方法,包括多项式逻辑回归,来探讨两者之间的关联。结果 当经历自杀危机的人被旁观者或同事转介时,出现不良后果的可能性更大。自我转介导致干预的可能性更大。有自杀倾向的人与认识的人联系后转介的,接受监测的可能性更大。任何手段的披露都会增加干预或不良后果的可能性。积极披露自杀或自残历史更有可能导致监控。局限性 该数据集旨在用于急性自杀分流的操作而非研究目的。结论 本研究强调了为急救人员提供研究支持的重要性,以提高他们对有自杀危机的人进行分流的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do Crisis Details Differentiate Suicide-Related 911 Call Outcomes?

Background The outcomes of calling 911 for suicide crises remain largely unexplored. Aims To investigate how characteristics of individuals in a suicidal crisis (e.g., age, gender identity, help-seeking source, means, disclosure of historical suicidality, or self-harm) may differentiate outcomes when contacting 911. Method The authors analyzed 1,073 Washington State Police 911 call logs, coding for characteristics and outcome (unknown, monitoring, intervention, adverse outcome). Descriptive and inferential statistics, including multinomial logistic regressions, were used to explore associations. Results When individuals experiencing a suicidal crisis were referred by bystander or associates' observations, there was a greater likelihood of adverse outcome. Self-referral led to a greater likelihood of intervention. Referral from the suicidal individual contacting a known associate led to a greater likelihood of monitoring. Any disclosure of means led to a greater likelihood of intervention or adverse outcomes. Positive disclosure of historical suicidality or self-harm was more likely to result in monitoring. Limitations The dataset was intended for operational use in acute suicidality triage rather than research purposes. Conclusion This study highlights the importance of supporting first responders with research to enhance their triage of people experiencing suicidal crises.

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:481959085
Book学术官方微信