While suicide prevention efforts are increasingly being delivered using technology, no scales have been developed specifically for web-based use. The Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale (SIDAS) was developed and validated as a brief, web-based measure for severity of suicidal ideation, using an online survey of Australian adults (n = 1,352). The SIDAS demonstrated high internal consistency and good convergent validity. Frequency and controllability of thoughts were more strongly associated with suicide plans and attempts than other attributes assessed. Scores ≥ 21 indicated high risk of suicide behavior. The SIDAS appears to be a valid web-based measure for severity of suicidal ideation.
BackgroundMental disorders are responsible for a high level of disability burden in students attending university. However, many universities have limited resources available to support student mental health. Technology-based interventions may be highly relevant to university populations. Previous reviews have targeted substance use and eating disorders in tertiary students. However, the effectiveness of technology-based interventions for other mental disorders and related issues has not been reviewed.ObjectiveTo systematically review published randomized trials of technology-based interventions evaluated in a university setting for disorders other than substance use and eating disorders.MethodsThe PubMed, PsycInfo, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched using keywords, phrases, and MeSH terms. Retrieved abstracts (n=1618) were double screened and coded. Included studies met the following criteria: (1) the study was a randomized trial or a randomized controlled trial, (2) the sample was composed of students attending a tertiary institution, (3) the intervention was delivered by or accessed using a technological device or process, (4) the age range of the sample was between 18 and 25 years, and (5) the intervention was designed to improve, reduce, or change symptoms relating to a mental disorder.ResultsA total of 27 studies met inclusion criteria for the present review. Most of the studies (24/27, 89%) employed interventions targeting anxiety symptoms or disorders or stress, although almost one-third (7/24, 29%) targeted both depression and anxiety. There were a total of 51 technology-based interventions employed across the 27 studies. Overall, approximately half (24/51, 47%) were associated with at least 1 significant positive outcome compared with the control at postintervention. However, 29% (15/51) failed to find a significant effect. Effect sizes were calculated for the 18 of 51 interventions that provided sufficient data. Median effect size was 0.54 (range –0.07 to 3.04) for 8 interventions targeting depression and anxiety symptoms and 0.84 (range –0.07 to 2.66) for 10 interventions targeting anxiety symptoms and disorders. Internet-based technology (typically involving cognitive behavioral therapy) was the most commonly employed medium, being employed in 16 of 27 studies and approximately half of the 51 technology-based interventions (25/51, 49%). Distal and universal preventive interventions were the most common type of intervention. Some methodological problems were evident in the studies, with randomization methods either inadequate or inadequately described, few studies specifying a primary outcome, and most of the studies failing to undertake or report appropriate intent-to-treat analyses.ConclusionsThe findings of this review indicate that although technological interventions targeting certain mental health and related problems offer promise for students in university settings, more high quality trials that fully report randomization methods, outcome data, and data ...
BackgroundTreatment for suicidality can be delivered online, but evidence for its effectiveness is needed.ObjectiveThe goal of our study was to examine the effectiveness of an online self-help intervention for suicidal thinking compared to an attention-matched control program.MethodsA 2-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with assessment at postintervention, 6, and, 12 months. Through media and community advertizing, 418 suicidal adults were recruited to an online portal and were delivered the intervention program (Living with Deadly Thoughts) or a control program (Living Well). The primary outcome was severity of suicidal thinking, assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.ResultsIntention-to-treat analyses showed significant reductions in the severity of suicidal thinking at postintervention, 6, and 12 months. However, no overall group differences were found.ConclusionsLiving with Deadly Thoughts was of no greater effectiveness than the control group. Further investigation into the conditions under which this program may be beneficial is now needed. Limitations of this trial include it being underpowered given the effect size ultimately observed, a high attrition rate, and the inability of determining suicide deaths or of verifying self-reported suicide attempts.Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000410752; https://www.anzctr.org.au/ Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364016 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vK5FvQXy); Universal Trial Number U1111-1141-6595
Optimal methods for implementing these applications will require further targeted research.
BackgroundResearch into e-mental health technologies has developed rapidly in the last 15 years. Applications such as Internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy interventions have accumulated considerable evidence of efficacy and some evidence of effectiveness. These programs have achieved similar outcomes to face-to-face therapy, while requiring much less clinician time. There is now burgeoning interest in integrating e-mental health resources with the broader mental health delivery system, particularly in primary care. The Australian government has supported the development and deployment of e-mental health resources, including websites that provide information, peer-to-peer support, automated self-help, and guided interventions. An ambitious national project has been commissioned to promote key resources to clinicians, to provide training in their use, and to evaluate the impact of promotion and training upon clinical practice. Previous initiatives have trained clinicians to use a single e-mental health program or a suite of related programs. In contrast, the current initiative will support community-based service providers to access a diverse array of resources developed and provided by many different groups.ObjectiveThe objective of this paper was to develop a conceptual framework to support the use of e-mental health resources in routine primary health care. In particular, models of clinical practice are required to guide the use of the resources by diverse service providers and to inform professional training, promotional, and evaluation activities.MethodsInformation about service providers’ use of e-mental health resources was synthesized from a nonsystematic overview of published literature and the authors’ experience of training primary care service providers.ResultsFive emerging clinical practice models are proposed: (1) promotion; (2) case management; (3) coaching; (4) symptom-focused treatment; and (5) comprehensive therapy. We also consider the service provider skills required for each model and the ways that e-mental health resources might be used by general practice doctors and nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, social workers, occupational therapists, counselors, and peer workersConclusionsThe models proposed in the current paper provide a conceptual framework for policy-makers, researchers and clinicians interested in integrating e-mental health resources into primary care. Research is needed to establish the safety and effectiveness of the models in routine care and the best ways to support their implementation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.