Remaining Between the Cracks - The Long-Term Effect of Different Suicide Risk Exclusion Criterion on Outcomes of an Online Intervention for Depression.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-22 DOI:10.1027/0227-5910/a000923
Alexandra Godinho, Christina Schell, John A Cunningham
{"title":"Remaining Between the Cracks - The Long-Term Effect of Different Suicide Risk Exclusion Criterion on Outcomes of an Online Intervention for Depression.","authors":"Alexandra Godinho, Christina Schell, John A Cunningham","doi":"10.1027/0227-5910/a000923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Previous studies have demonstrated that excluding individuals at risk of suicide from online depression interventions can impact recruited sample characteristics. <i>Aim:</i> To determine if a small change in suicide risk exclusion criterion led to differences in the usage and effectiveness of an Internet depression intervention at 6 months of follow-up. <i>Method:</i> A partial sample of a recently completed online depression intervention trial was divided into two groups: those with no risk of suicide versus those with some risk. The two groups were compared for baseline demographic and clinical measures, as well as intervention uptake and treatment success across 6 months. <i>Results:</i> Overall, individuals with less risk of suicide at baseline reported significantly less severe clinical symptoms. Both groups interacted with the intervention at the same rate, but specific use of modules was different. Finally, the impact of intervention usage on outcomes over time did not vary by group. <i>Limitations:</i> While different suicide risk exclusion criteria can change recruited sample characteristics, it remains unclear how these differences impact intervention uptake and success. <i>Conclusion:</i> Overall, the findings suggest that researchers should exercise caution when excluding individuals at risk of suicide, as they greatly benefit from web-based interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47943,"journal":{"name":"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"100-107"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","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/a000923","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Previous studies have demonstrated that excluding individuals at risk of suicide from online depression interventions can impact recruited sample characteristics. Aim: To determine if a small change in suicide risk exclusion criterion led to differences in the usage and effectiveness of an Internet depression intervention at 6 months of follow-up. Method: A partial sample of a recently completed online depression intervention trial was divided into two groups: those with no risk of suicide versus those with some risk. The two groups were compared for baseline demographic and clinical measures, as well as intervention uptake and treatment success across 6 months. Results: Overall, individuals with less risk of suicide at baseline reported significantly less severe clinical symptoms. Both groups interacted with the intervention at the same rate, but specific use of modules was different. Finally, the impact of intervention usage on outcomes over time did not vary by group. Limitations: While different suicide risk exclusion criteria can change recruited sample characteristics, it remains unclear how these differences impact intervention uptake and success. Conclusion: Overall, the findings suggest that researchers should exercise caution when excluding individuals at risk of suicide, as they greatly benefit from web-based interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
夹缝中求生存--不同自杀风险排除标准对抑郁症在线干预结果的长期影响。
背景:以往的研究表明,将有自杀风险的人排除在网络抑郁干预之外会影响招募样本的特征。目的:确定自杀风险排除标准的微小变化是否会导致网络抑郁干预在随访 6 个月后的使用率和有效性出现差异。方法:对最近完成的在线抑郁症干预的部分样本进行分析:将最近完成的一项在线抑郁干预试验的部分样本分为两组:无自杀风险组和有自杀风险组。比较两组的基线人口统计学和临床测量指标,以及 6 个月的干预吸收率和治疗成功率。研究结果总体而言,基线时自杀风险较低的个体报告的临床症状明显较轻。两组患者与干预措施的互动率相同,但具体使用的模块不同。最后,随着时间的推移,干预措施的使用对结果的影响并不因组别而异。局限性:虽然不同的自杀风险排除标准会改变招募样本的特征,但这些差异如何影响干预的接受度和成功率仍不清楚。结论:总体而言,研究结果表明,研究人员在排除自杀风险人群时应谨慎行事,因为他们从网络干预中获益匪浅。
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 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.
期刊最新文献
Testing the Three-Step Theory of Suicide. Holding the Line - Mental Well-Being, Stressors, and Coping in Crisis Supporters. Hidden in Plain Sight - Staff Exposure to Suicide and Responses to a New, Systemic Model of Workplace Postvention. The Prevalence of Suicidal Ideation According to Occupation and Other Employment Variables. Perceived Effectiveness of Components of Interventions to Support People Bereaved By 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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1