Perceived Usefulness of Self-Guided Versus Collaborative Suicide Safety Plans in Online Help-Seekers.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 PSYCHIATRY Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-06 DOI:10.1027/0227-5910/a000940
Christopher Rainbow, Ruth Tatnell, Grant Blashki, Glenn A Melvin
{"title":"Perceived Usefulness of Self-Guided Versus Collaborative Suicide Safety Plans in Online Help-Seekers.","authors":"Christopher Rainbow, Ruth Tatnell, Grant Blashki, Glenn A Melvin","doi":"10.1027/0227-5910/a000940","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> <i>Background:</i> Suicide safety plans were originally devised to be paper-based and clinician-guided, but digital self-guided plans are now common. <i>Aim:</i> This study explored whether plan format (paper vs. digital), assistance (self-authored vs. collaboration), and suicide attempt history were associated with differences in suicidal ideation, suicide-related coping, and perceived usefulness. <i>Method:</i> An online sample of safety plan users (<i>N</i> = 131) completed a survey assessing suicidal ideation, suicide-related coping, and perceived usefulness of their plan. <i>t</i> tests compared outcomes by plan format, collaboration, and suicide attempt history. Pearson correlations explored associations between reasons for plan use, suicidal ideation, and suicide-related coping. <i>Results:</i> Suicidal ideation was significantly higher, and perceived usefulness significantly lower in participants with a past suicide attempt (vs. none) and in those who had collaborated to make their safety plan (vs. self-authored). Collaborators were largely health professionals. No significant differences were found between plan formats. Suicide-related coping was associated with higher perceived usefulness overall. <i>Limitations:</i> Our study design was cross-sectional, utilizing a largely young, female, English-speaking, online help-seeking sample. <i>Conclusions:</i> For clients with prior suicide attempts and higher levels of suicidal ideation, meaningful collaboration may be needed to find safety plan coping strategies that are perceived as useful.</p>","PeriodicalId":47943,"journal":{"name":"Crisis-The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention","volume":" ","pages":"294-300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","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/a000940","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Suicide safety plans were originally devised to be paper-based and clinician-guided, but digital self-guided plans are now common. Aim: This study explored whether plan format (paper vs. digital), assistance (self-authored vs. collaboration), and suicide attempt history were associated with differences in suicidal ideation, suicide-related coping, and perceived usefulness. Method: An online sample of safety plan users (N = 131) completed a survey assessing suicidal ideation, suicide-related coping, and perceived usefulness of their plan. t tests compared outcomes by plan format, collaboration, and suicide attempt history. Pearson correlations explored associations between reasons for plan use, suicidal ideation, and suicide-related coping. Results: Suicidal ideation was significantly higher, and perceived usefulness significantly lower in participants with a past suicide attempt (vs. none) and in those who had collaborated to make their safety plan (vs. self-authored). Collaborators were largely health professionals. No significant differences were found between plan formats. Suicide-related coping was associated with higher perceived usefulness overall. Limitations: Our study design was cross-sectional, utilizing a largely young, female, English-speaking, online help-seeking sample. Conclusions: For clients with prior suicide attempts and higher levels of suicidal ideation, meaningful collaboration may be needed to find safety plan coping strategies that are perceived as useful.

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
在线求助者对自我指导与合作自杀安全计划的有用性认知。
背景:自杀安全计划最初是在临床医生指导下设计的纸质计划,但现在数字化的自我指导计划已很普遍。目的:本研究探讨了计划格式(纸质与数字化)、协助(自编与合作)以及自杀未遂史是否与自杀意念、自杀相关应对措施和感知有用性方面的差异有关。研究方法安全计划用户在线样本(N = 131)完成了一项调查,评估自杀意念、与自杀相关的应对方法以及对计划有用性的认知。皮尔逊相关性探讨了计划使用原因、自杀意念和自杀相关应对措施之间的关联。结果显示曾有自杀企图的参与者(与没有自杀企图的参与者相比)和合作制定安全计划的参与者(与自己制定计划的参与者相比)的自杀意念明显较高,对计划有用性的认知明显较低。合作者主要是医疗专业人员。不同形式的计划之间没有明显差异。与自杀相关的应对措施与总体上较高的感知有用性相关。局限性:我们的研究设计是横断面的,使用的样本主要是年轻女性、讲英语的在线求助者。结论对于有过自杀企图且自杀意念较强的求助者,可能需要进行有意义的合作,以找到被认为有用的安全计划应对策略。
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