A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) Versus Treatment as Usual (TAU) for Suicidal College Students

Pistorello, Jacqueline; Jobes, David A.; Gallop, Robert; Compton, Scott N.; Locey, Nadia Samad; Au, Josephine S.; Noose, Samantha K.; Walloch, Joseph C.; Johnson, Jacquelyn; Young, M.; Dickens, Yani L.; Chatham, Patricia M.; Jeffcoat, Tami

doi:10.1080/13811118.2020.1749742

Cited by 33 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…To date, there have been a number of studies adding to the evidence base for CAMS, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with active controls (Andreasson et al, 2016;Comtois et al, 2011;Jobes et al, 2017;Johnson et al, 2019;O'Connor et al, 2012;Pistorello et al, 2020;Ryberg et al, 2019), naturalistic controlled trials (Ellis et al, 2015(Ellis et al, , 2017Jobes et al, 2005), uncontrolled descriptive studies (Ellis et al, 2012;Nielsen et al, 2011), and recent investigations of app-based deliveries of CAMS (Dimeff et al, 2018;Dimeff et al, 2021;O'Toole et al, 2019). These have included investigations conducted in a number of contexts, such as inpatient psychiatric hospitals (Ellis et al, 2012(Ellis et al, , 2015, military settings (Jobes et al, 2005(Jobes et al, , 2017, community mental health centers (Comtois et al, 2011;Nielsen et al, 2011), and emergency departments (Dimeff et al, 2018;Dimeff et al, 2021).…”

Section: Practitioner Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While this review (Hanratty et al, 2019) provided an initial examination of CAMS research, it has a number of limitations. First, it did not include RCTs of CAMS that have been published since 2017 (e.g., Jobes et al, 2017;Pistorello et al, 2020;Ryberg et al, 2019). Additionally, its exclusion of controlled retrospective designs resulted in some naturalistic trials being omitted (e.g., Jobes et al, 2005); inclusion of such studies is important for documenting the effects of psychological interventions in real-world clinical settings (Hunsley & Lee, 2007).…”

Section: Practitioner Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta‐analysis

Swift

Trusty

Penix

2021

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: This meta-analysis aimed to test the efficacy of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) intervention against other commonly used interventions for the treatment of suicide ideation and other suiciderelated variables. Method: Database, expert, and root and branch searches identified nine empirical studies that directly compared CAMS to other active interventions. A random effects model was used to calculate the effect size differences between the interventions; additionally, moderators of the effect sizes were tested for suicidal ideation. Results: In comparison to alternative interventions, CAMS resulted in significantly lower suicidal ideation (d = 0.25) and general distress (d = 0.29), significantly higher treatment acceptability (d = 0.42), and significantly higher hope/lower hopelessness (d = 0.88). No significant differences for suicide attempts, self-harm, other suiciderelated correlates, or cost effectiveness were observed. The effect size differences for suicidal ideation were consistent across study types and quality, timing of outcome measurement, and the age and ethnicity of participants; however, the effect sizes favoring CAMS were significantly smaller with active duty military/veteran samples and with male participants. Conclusions: The existing research supports CAMS as a Well Supported intervention for suicidal ideation per Center of Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Practitioner Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Practitioner Pointsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta‐analysis

Swift

Trusty

Penix

2021

Suicide & Life Threat Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Das CAMS wurde in erster Linie bei suizidalen Erwachsenen eingesetzt, darunter Patienten mit verschiedenen Diagnosen, wie Borderline-Persönlichkeitsstörungen [15], Depressionen, Angststörungen und Traumafolgestörungen [16,17]. CAMS wird zunehmend auch bei suizidalen Jugendlichen und bei Kindern angewandt und untersucht [18]. Der ursprünglich für den ambulanten Kontext entwickelte Ansatz ist mittlerweile für unterschiedliche Kontexte modifiziert worden.…”

Section: Entwicklungen Des Camsunclassified

“…Es gibt mittlerweile 5 publizierte randomisierte kontrollierte Studien (RCTs) mit suizidalen Patienten und Patientinnen, die zeigen konnten, dass CAMS verglichen mit Treatment as Usual innerhalb von 4-8 Sitzungen zu einer signifikanten Verringerung der Suizidgedanken führt [17,28,29] und die allgemeine Symptombelastung auch noch nach 12 Monaten signifikant reduziert [18,28,29] (▶Tab. 1).…”

Section: Wirksamkeit Des Camsunclassified

Das „Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality“ (CAMS) – Eine wirksame (Kurz-) Intervention zur Behandlung von suizidalen Patienten

Santel

Beblo

Leygraf

et al. 2021

Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungDas „Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality“ (CAMS) ist einer von mehreren Interventionsansätzen zur Behandlung von suizidalen Patienten und Patientinnen und wurde weltweit seit 3 Jahrzehnten untersucht und weiterentwickelt. Das CAMS ist auf die Etablierung einer tragenden therapeutischen Beziehung auf Augenhöhe zu einer suizidalen Person ausgerichtet. Der Patient wird aktiv an der Einschätzung seines Suizidrisikos beteiligt und zum „Mitverfasser“ seines eigenen suizidspezifischen Behandlungsplans. Das konkrete therapeutische Vorgehen wird durch ein vielseitig anwendbares Instrument, die sogenannte Suizidstatusform (SSF), strukturiert und geleitet. Das CAMS kann von verschiedenen therapeutischen Berufsgruppen sowie bei Patienten und Patientinnen mit unterschiedlichen Diagnosen angewandt werden. Die Wirksamkeit im Hinblick auf eine Verringerung von Suizidgedanken, der allgemeinen psychischen Belastung und Depressivität sowie auf eine Zunahme von Hoffnung und Zuversicht ist mittlerweile empirisch gut belegt.

show abstract

“…Intended for use by mental health professionals, CAMS is one of a relatively limited number of psychological treatment approaches that speci cally targets suicidal thoughts and behaviours. Several randomised controlled trials have demonstrated the e cacy of CAMS in reducing suicidal ideation, and there is promising evidence for its impact on reducing self-harm behaviour and suicide attempts (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Developed by clinical researchers in the US, CAMS has been primarily tested in US healthcare settings including inpatient and outpatient care.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a Tailored Implementation Action Plan for a Suicide Prevention Clinical Intervention in an Australian Mental Health Service: A Qualitative Study Using the EPIS Framework.

Zbukvic

Rheinberger

Rosebrock

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Tailoring implementation strategies to local contexts is a promising approach to supporting implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices in health settings. While there is increasing research on tailored implementation of mental health interventions, implementation research on suicide prevention interventions is limited. This study aimed to evaluate implementation and subsequently develop a tailored action plan to support implementation, sustainment and scale-up of an evidence-based suicide prevention intervention - Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) - in an Australian public mental health service.Methods: This study took place within a larger randomised stepped-wedge design suicide prevention trial. Approximately 150 mental health staff working within a regional and remote community Local Health District in Australia were trained in CAMS. Semi-structured interviews and focus groups with frontline staff and clinical leaders were conducted to examine barriers and facilitators to using CAMS. Data were analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach and mapped to the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation and Sustainment (EPIS) framework. This was followed by stakeholder engagement to design a tailored implementation action plan based on a ‘tailored blueprint’ methodology.Results: A total of 22 barriers to implementing CAMS were identified. Based on the perceived impact on implementation fidelity and the feasibility of addressing identified barriers, six barriers were prioritised for addressing through an implementation plan. These barriers were mapped to evidence-based implementation strategies and, in collaboration with local health district staff, goals and actionable steps for each strategy were generated. This information was combined into a tailored implementation plan to support the sustainable use of CAMS as part of routine care within this mental health service. Conclusions: This study provides an example of a collaborative approach to tailoring strategies for implementation on a large scale. Novel insights were obtained into the challenges of evaluating the implementation process and barriers to implementing an evidence-based suicide prevention treatment approach within a geographically large and varied mental health service in Australia.Trial registration: This study was conducted as part of the LifeSpan suicide prevention trial. Trial registration for LifeSpan in Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, ID: ACTRN12617000457347. Prospectively registered on 28 March 2017.

show abstract

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) Versus Treatment as Usual (TAU) for Suicidal College Students

Cited by 33 publications

References 60 publications

The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta‐analysis

The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta‐analysis

Das „Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality“ (CAMS) – Eine wirksame (Kurz-) Intervention zur Behandlung von suizidalen Patienten

Developing a Tailored Implementation Action Plan for a Suicide Prevention Clinical Intervention in an Australian Mental Health Service: A Qualitative Study Using the EPIS Framework.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About