Combining green cards, telephone calls and postcards into an intervention algorithm to reduce suicide reattempt (AlgoS): P-hoc analyses of an inconclusive randomized controlled trial.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
13
12
2017
accepted:
01
01
2019
entrez:
2
2
2019
pubmed:
2
2
2019
medline:
30
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Brief contact interventions (BCIs) might be reliable suicide prevention strategies. BCI efficacy trials, however, gave equivocal results. AlgoS trial is a composite BCI that yielded inconclusive results when analyzed with Intention-To-Treat strategy. In order to elicit intervention strengths and weaknesses, post-hoc analyses of AlgoS data were performed. AlgoS was a randomized controlled trial conducted in 23 French hospitals. Suicide attempters were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (AlgoS) or the control group (Treatment as usual TAU). In the AlgoS arm, first-time suicide attempters received crisis cards; non first-time suicide attempters received a phone call, and post-cards if the call could not be completed, or if the participant was in crisis and/or non-compliant with the post-discharge treatment. An As Treated strategy, accounting for the actual intervention received, was combined with subgroup analyses. 1,040 patients were recruited and randomized into two groups of N = 520, from which 53 withdrew participation; 15 were excluded after inclusion/exclusion criteria reassessment. AlgoS first attempters were less likely to reiterate suicide attempt (SA) than their TAU counterparts at 6 and 13-14 months (RR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.25-0.85] and 0.50 [0.31-0.81] respectively). AlgoS non-first attempters had similar SA rates as their TAU counterparts at 6 and 13-14 months (RR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.57-1.25] and 1.00 [0.73-1.37] respectively). SA rates were dissimilar within the AlgoS non-first attempter group. This new set of analysis suggests that crisis cards could be efficacious to prevent new SA attempts among first-time attempters, while phone calls were probably not significantly efficacious among multi-attempters. Importantly, phone calls were informative of new SA risk, thus a key component of future interventions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Brief contact interventions (BCIs) might be reliable suicide prevention strategies. BCI efficacy trials, however, gave equivocal results. AlgoS trial is a composite BCI that yielded inconclusive results when analyzed with Intention-To-Treat strategy. In order to elicit intervention strengths and weaknesses, post-hoc analyses of AlgoS data were performed.
METHODS
AlgoS was a randomized controlled trial conducted in 23 French hospitals. Suicide attempters were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (AlgoS) or the control group (Treatment as usual TAU). In the AlgoS arm, first-time suicide attempters received crisis cards; non first-time suicide attempters received a phone call, and post-cards if the call could not be completed, or if the participant was in crisis and/or non-compliant with the post-discharge treatment. An As Treated strategy, accounting for the actual intervention received, was combined with subgroup analyses.
RESULTS
1,040 patients were recruited and randomized into two groups of N = 520, from which 53 withdrew participation; 15 were excluded after inclusion/exclusion criteria reassessment. AlgoS first attempters were less likely to reiterate suicide attempt (SA) than their TAU counterparts at 6 and 13-14 months (RR [95% CI]: 0.46 [0.25-0.85] and 0.50 [0.31-0.81] respectively). AlgoS non-first attempters had similar SA rates as their TAU counterparts at 6 and 13-14 months (RR [95% CI]: 0.84 [0.57-1.25] and 1.00 [0.73-1.37] respectively). SA rates were dissimilar within the AlgoS non-first attempter group.
CONCLUSIONS
This new set of analysis suggests that crisis cards could be efficacious to prevent new SA attempts among first-time attempters, while phone calls were probably not significantly efficacious among multi-attempters. Importantly, phone calls were informative of new SA risk, thus a key component of future interventions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30707710
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210778
pii: PONE-D-17-43630
pmc: PMC6358079
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0210778Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Jun;52(6):828-33
pubmed: 11376235
Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Jun;210(6):396-402
pubmed: 28428338
J Clin Psychiatry. 2018 Sep 25;79(6):
pubmed: 30256552
J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;47(1):32-40
pubmed: 18174823
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016 Feb;50(2):115-8
pubmed: 26698822
J Affect Disord. 2015 Mar 15;174:101-5
pubmed: 25496757
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;197(1):5-7
pubmed: 20592425
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 May 12;(5):CD012189
pubmed: 27168519
JAMA Psychiatry. 2015 Jun;72(6):570-5
pubmed: 25830811
Eur Psychiatry. 2012 Feb;27(2):129-41
pubmed: 22137775
Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2016 Feb;30(1):114-9
pubmed: 26804512
Compr Psychiatry. 2017 Oct;78:54-60
pubmed: 28803042
BMC Psychiatry. 2011 Jan 02;11:1
pubmed: 21194496
Clin Trials. 2012 Feb;9(1):48-55
pubmed: 21948059
BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Nov 18;14:294
pubmed: 25404215
BMJ Open. 2014 Jun 17;4(6):e005362
pubmed: 24939814
BMJ. 2005 Oct 8;331(7520):805
pubmed: 16183654
J Affect Disord. 2015 Apr 1;175:66-78
pubmed: 25594513
Stat Med. 2007 Feb 28;26(5):954-64
pubmed: 16900559
Lancet. 2016 Mar 19;387(10024):1227-39
pubmed: 26385066
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;3(7):646-59
pubmed: 27289303
Lancet Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;1(3):165-7
pubmed: 26360713
Suicide Life Threat Behav. 2007 Jun;37(3):264-77
pubmed: 17579539
Br J Psychiatry. 2010 Jul;197(1):55-60
pubmed: 20592434
Lancet Psychiatry. 2014 Aug;1(3):193-201
pubmed: 26360731
JAMA. 2005 Oct 26;294(16):2064-74
pubmed: 16249421
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 1;375(9):861-70
pubmed: 27579636
Br J Psychiatry. 2005 Aug;187:186-7
pubmed: 16055834
Lancet Psychiatry. 2016 Jul;3(7):597-8
pubmed: 27289304
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Mar;206(3):184-90
pubmed: 25733570