Disclosure of suicidal ideation in non-psychiatric clinical research: Experience using a novel suicide risk management algorithm in a multi-center smoking cessation trial

Kelsey L Schertz, Megan Petrik, Mariah Branson, Steven S Fu, Alexander J Rothman, Abbie Begnaud, Anne M Joseph
{"title":"Disclosure of suicidal ideation in non-psychiatric clinical research: Experience using a novel suicide risk management algorithm in a multi-center smoking cessation trial","authors":"Kelsey L Schertz, Megan Petrik, Mariah Branson, Steven S Fu, Alexander J Rothman, Abbie Begnaud, Anne M Joseph","doi":"10.1177/26320843231212427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Clinical trials involving pharmacologic or behavioral treatments often assess depression and suicidal ideation for purposes of screening, baseline assessment of potential moderators or mediators of treatment, or as a study outcome, even if the primary condition under study is not a mental health disorder. Suicide risk management in the context of clinical research poses significant clinical, ethical, and practical challenges, and the literature provides little guidance with respect to outcomes of suicide risk management protocols (SRMPs) or suicide risk assessment instruments deployed in the clinical research setting. Methods We report our experience using a novel SRMP in the Program for Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation (PLUTO) trial through in-person and remote interactions. Results An SRMP was developed for non-clinical research staff to assess and respond to participants who express suicidal ideation. Between September 2016 and April 2021, the SRMP was used 61 times for 59 individuals. The SRMP was activated by explicit probing of suicidal ideation in 46 of 61 uses (75%). Subject risk was categorized as high-risk in 6 of 61 SRMP uses (10%). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate a useful tool for the management of suicidal ideation and behavior in a clinical trial. Suicidal ideation may be endorsed by only a small number of study participants, however participant safety dictates the need to develop and implement a practical SRMP. These findings may be of relevance to researchers collecting patient reported outcomes remotely. Researchers should consider available resources for SRMPs during design and start-up phases of research.","PeriodicalId":74683,"journal":{"name":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","volume":"12 10","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research methods in medicine & health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/26320843231212427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Clinical trials involving pharmacologic or behavioral treatments often assess depression and suicidal ideation for purposes of screening, baseline assessment of potential moderators or mediators of treatment, or as a study outcome, even if the primary condition under study is not a mental health disorder. Suicide risk management in the context of clinical research poses significant clinical, ethical, and practical challenges, and the literature provides little guidance with respect to outcomes of suicide risk management protocols (SRMPs) or suicide risk assessment instruments deployed in the clinical research setting. Methods We report our experience using a novel SRMP in the Program for Lung Cancer Screening and Tobacco Cessation (PLUTO) trial through in-person and remote interactions. Results An SRMP was developed for non-clinical research staff to assess and respond to participants who express suicidal ideation. Between September 2016 and April 2021, the SRMP was used 61 times for 59 individuals. The SRMP was activated by explicit probing of suicidal ideation in 46 of 61 uses (75%). Subject risk was categorized as high-risk in 6 of 61 SRMP uses (10%). Conclusion Our findings demonstrate a useful tool for the management of suicidal ideation and behavior in a clinical trial. Suicidal ideation may be endorsed by only a small number of study participants, however participant safety dictates the need to develop and implement a practical SRMP. These findings may be of relevance to researchers collecting patient reported outcomes remotely. Researchers should consider available resources for SRMPs during design and start-up phases of research.
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
非精神病学临床研究中自杀意念的披露:在多中心戒烟试验中使用新型自杀风险管理算法的经验
背景:涉及药物或行为治疗的临床试验经常评估抑郁和自杀意念,以筛选、基线评估潜在的治疗调节或中介因素,或作为研究结果,即使研究的主要情况不是精神健康障碍。临床研究背景下的自杀风险管理带来了重大的临床、伦理和实践挑战,并且文献对在临床研究环境中部署的自杀风险管理协议(SRMPs)或自杀风险评估工具的结果提供了很少的指导。方法:我们报告了我们在肺癌筛查和戒烟项目(PLUTO)试验中通过面对面和远程互动使用新型SRMP的经验。结果为非临床研究人员开发了一个SRMP来评估和回应表达自杀意念的参与者。在2016年9月至2021年4月期间,SRMP被使用了61次,共有59人。在61例使用中,有46例(75%)被自杀意念的外显试探激活SRMP。61例SRMP使用中有6例(10%)受试者风险被归类为高风险。结论本研究结果为临床试验中自杀意念和行为的管理提供了一个有用的工具。自杀意念可能只有少数研究参与者认可,然而参与者的安全要求需要制定和实施一个实用的SRMP。这些发现可能与研究人员远程收集患者报告的结果有关。研究人员应在研究的设计和启动阶段考虑srmp的可用资源。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Choice of Link Functions for Generalized Linear Mixed Models in Meta-Analyses of Proportions. Disclosure of suicidal ideation in non-psychiatric clinical research: Experience using a novel suicide risk management algorithm in a multi-center smoking cessation trial Dynamic relationship among immediate release fentanyl use and cancer incidence: A multivariate time-series analysis using vector autoregressive models Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics. Editorial
×
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