No abstract

Research priority setting aims to gain consensus about areas where research effort will have wide benefits to society. While general principles for setting health research priorities have been suggested, there has been no critical review of the different approaches used. This review aims to: (i) examine methods, models and frameworks used to set health research priorities; (ii) identify barriers and facilitators to priority setting processes; and (iii) determine the outcomes of priority setting processes in relation to their objectives and impact on policy and practice.Medline, Cochrane, and PsycINFO databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published from 1990 to March 2012. A review of grey literature was also conducted. Priority setting exercises that aimed to develop population health and health services research priorities conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, Europe and the UK were included. Two authors extracted data from identified studies.Eleven diverse priority setting exercises across a range of health areas were identified. Strategies including calls for submission, stakeholder surveys, questionnaires, interviews, workshops, focus groups, roundtables, the Nominal Group and Delphi technique were used to generate research priorities. Nine priority setting exercises used a core steering or advisory group to oversee and supervise the priority setting process. None of the models conducted a systematic assessment of the outcomes of the priority setting processes, or assessed the impact of the generated priorities on policy or practice. A number of barriers and facilitators to undertaking research priority setting were identified.The methods used to undertake research priority setting should be selected based upon the context of the priority setting process and time and resource constraints. Ideally, priority setting should be overseen by a multi-disciplinary advisory group, involve a broad representation of stakeholders, utilise objective and clearly defined criteria for generating priorities, and be evaluated.

Adolescent non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) and suicidality are serious health concerns; however, factors that contribute to the transition from NSSI to suicide ideation and suicide attempts are unclear. To address this gap, we investigated whether demographic characteristics, child maltreatment, and psychiatric factors are associated with the level suicidality among adolescents with a history of self-injury. Participants were three groups of adolescent inpatient self-injurers (n = 397, 317 female), aged 13–18 years (M = 15.44, SD = 1.36): (a) non-ideators (n = 96; no current suicide ideation and no lifetime suicide attempts), (b) suicide ideators (n = 149; current ideation and no lifetime attempts), and (c) suicide attempters (n = 152; current ideation and at least one lifetime attempt). Participants completed interviews assessing psychiatric diagnoses, suicidality, and NSSI characteristics, as well as questionnaires on childhood trauma, psychiatric symptoms, and risky behavior engagement. Depression severity was associated with greater odds being a suicide ideator (p < 0.001, OR = 1.04) and an attempter (p < 0.001, OR = 1.05) compared to a non-ideator. Suicide attempters used more NSSI methods and reported greater risky behavior engagement than non-ideators (p = 0.03, OR = 1.29 and p = 0.03, OR = 1.06, respectively) and ideators (p = 0.015, OR = 1.25 and p = 0.04, OR = 1.05, respectively); attempters used more severe NSSI methods (e.g., burning). Our results identify a wide range of risk markers for increasing lethality in a sample at high risk for suicide mortality; future research is needed to refine risk assessments for adolescent self-injurers and determine the clinical utility of using risk markers for screening and intervention.

Background Adolescent depression and suicide are pressing public health concerns, and identifying key differences among suicide ideators and attempters is critical. The goal of the current study is to test whether depressed adolescent suicide attempters report greater anhedonia severity and exhibit aberrant effort-cost computations in the face of uncertainty. Methods Depressed adolescents (n = 101) ages 13–19 years were administered structured clinical interviews to assess current mental health disorders and a history of suicidality (suicide ideators = 55, suicide attempters = 46). Then, participants completed self-report instruments assessing symptoms of suicidal ideation, depression, anhedonia, and anxiety as well as a computerized effort-cost computation task. Results Compared with depressed adolescent suicide ideators, attempters report greater anhedonia severity, even after concurrently controlling for symptoms of suicidal ideation, depression, and anxiety. Additionally, when completing the effort-cost computation task, suicide attempters are less likely to pursue the difficult, high value option when outcomes are uncertain. Follow-up, trial-level analyses of effort-cost computations suggest that receipt of reward does not influence future decision-making among suicide attempters, however, suicide ideators exhibit a win-stay approach when receiving rewards on previous trials. Limitations Findings should be considered in light of limitations including a modest sample size, which limits generalizability, and the cross-sectional design. Conclusions Depressed adolescent suicide attempters are characterized by greater anhedonia severity, which may impair the ability to integrate previous rewarding experiences to inform future decisions. Taken together, this may generate a feeling of powerlessness that contributes to increased suicidality and a needless loss of life.