Group (“Project Life Force”) versus individual suicide safety planning: A randomized clinical trial

A pilot randomized control trial of a dyadic safety planning intervention: Safe actions for families to encourage recovery.

“…When probed about the reluctance of participating in a family treatment, Veterans listed four main concerns: (a) Veteran could not identify a supporting partner to participate with them; (b) Veteran did not want to further burden social supports; (c) Veterans had not yet disclosed suicidal symptoms to their supportive partner, highlighting an important obstacle to be addressed in future refinements; (d) Veteran felt their current suicidal symptoms did not warrant participation (e.g., suicide attempt many years ago). As our research team conducts multiple intervention projects and subjects are offered a choice, as a result, many Veterans preferred to participate in a Veteran peer intervention that did not involve supportive partners (Goodman, Brown, et al, 2020; Goodman, Sullivan, et al, 2020; Marin et al, 2019). In addition, family members were reluctant to participate for fears of feeling furthered burdened and adding additional caretaking responsibilities to already busy schedules.…”

“…Although the SPI has been implemented in multiple different contexts (e.g., individual and group settings; Goodman, Brown, et al, 2020; Goodman, Sullivan, et al, 2020), there are no present guidelines specifying the involvement of family members in this intervention. Research suggests that Service Members with strong familial support have better mental health outcomes (Wilson et al, 2015).…”

Qualitative Study of Telehealth Delivery of Suicide-Specific Group Treatment “Project Life Force”

“…Participants were recruited from a parent study, an RCT comparing PLF to treatment as usual among high-risk suicidal Veterans at the aforementioned two VAs (Goodman et al, 2020 ). The parent study recruited subjects from inpatient psychiatric units, VA high-risk lists managed by Suicide Prevention Coordinators, and outpatient mental health clinics.…”

“…Exclusion criteria included unable to speak English or consent, unable to tolerate group intervention format, medically supervised withdrawal for substance use, schizophrenia diagnosis, or current participation in another intervention trial. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria are found in a previous publication (Goodman et al, 2020 ).…”

In Memoriam

“…19 In a remarkably short time, Safety Planning has become a standard of care for the acute management of suicidal patients across a wide range of settings and may well provide the core around which other interventions may be developed. 20 The final two decades of Professor Beck's extraordinary career also saw him pursue his dream to adapt CBT to be better suited to treat individuals with schizophrenia, the most severe and persistent mental disorder. 18,21 At the heart of Beck's approach to treatment of chronic schizophrenia is the focus on identifying and modifying negative, defeatist beliefs that underpin more global attributes of social withdrawal and diminished motivation and the positivist therapeutic expectation that change is possible through stepwise tailored tasks to improve engagement in behavioral activation exercises and problem solving strategies.…”