Search

Implementation of evidence-based suicide prevention is critical to prevent death by suicide. Contrary to previously held beliefs, interventions including contracting for safety, no-harm contracts, and no-suicide contracts are not best practices and are considered contraindicated. Little is known about the current use of best practices and contraindicated interventions for suicide prevention in community settings. Data were collected from 771 individuals enrolled in a suicide prevention training. Both mental health clinicians (n = 613) and mental health allies (e.g., teachers, first responders) (n = 158) reported which best practices (i.e., safety plan, crisis response plan) and contraindicated interventions (i.e., contracting for safety, no-harm contract, no-suicide contract) they use with individuals who presents with risk for suicide. The majority of both mental health clinicians (89.7%) and mental health allies (67.1%) endorsed using at least one evidence-based practice. However, of those who endorsed using evidence-based interventions, ∼40% of both mental health clinicians and allies endorsed using contraindicated interventions as well. Contraindicated interventions are being used at high rates and suicide prevention trainings for evidence-based interventions should include a focus on de-implementation of contraindicated interventions. This study examined only a snapshot of what clinicians and allies endorsed using. Additional in depth information about each intervention and when it is used would provide helpful information and should be considered in future studies. Future research is needed to ensure only evidence-based interventions are being used to help prevent death by suicide. The majority of both mental health clinicians and mental health allies use evidence-based practices for suicide prevention. This indicates good implementation rates of evidence-based interventions for suicide prevention. Approximately 40% of both mental health clinicians and mental health allies who endorsed using evidence-based practices for suicide preventions also endorsed using contraindicated interventions. A focus on de-implementation of contraindicated suicide interventions is warranted and should be part of the focus on suicide prevention efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a significant mental health issue among military service members and veterans. Although the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provides crucial resources for behavioral health care, many veterans seek mental health services through community clinics. Previous research illustrates that military and veteran patients benefit less from evidence‐based treatments (EBTs) for PTSD than civilians. However, most PTSD treatment outcome research on military and veteran populations is conducted in VA or military settings. Little is known about outcomes among military‐affiliated patients in community settings. The primary aim of this study was to directly compare civilian versus military‐affiliated patient outcomes on PTSD and depression symptoms using the PTSD Checklist for DSM‐5 (PCL‐5) and the nine‐item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ‐9) in a community setting. Participants (N = 502) included military‐affiliated (veteran, Guard/Reservist, active duty) and civilian patients who engaged in cognitive processing therapy (CPT) or prolonged exposure (PE) for PTSD in community clinics. Both groups demonstrated significant reductions on the PCL‐5, military‐affiliated: d = −0.91, civilian: d = ‐1.18; and PHQ‐9, military‐affiliated: d = ‐0.65, civilian: d = ‐0.88, following treatment. However, military‐affiliated patients demonstrated smaller posttreatment reductions on the PCL‐5, Mdiff= 5.75, p =.003, and PHQ‐9, Mdiff = 1.71, p =.011, compared to civilians. Results demonstrate that military‐affiliated patients benefit from EBTs for PTSD, albeit to a lesser degree than civilians, even in community settings. These findings also highlight the importance of future research on improving EBTs for military personnel with PTSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a well-established risk factor for suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Historically, guidelines for treating PTSD have recommended against the use of trauma-focused therapies for patients who are at high risk for suicide, likely due to concerns about potential suicide-related iatrogenesis, specifically the "triggering" of suicidal behaviors. This systematic review examined evidence of the impact of treatments specifically designed to treat PTSD or suicide on both PTSD- and suicide-related outcomes. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and a total of 33 articles met the full inclusion criteria: 23 examining PTSD treatments, four examining suicide-focused treatments, and six examining combined treatments. PTSD and combined treatments reduced both PTSD- and suicide-related outcomes, with most studies focusing on cognitive processing therapy or prolonged exposure. Suicide-focused treatments (e.g., cognitive therapies for suicide prevention) also reduced suicide-related outcomes, but the findings were mixed for their impact on PTSD-related outcomes. Overall, PTSD treatments had the most support, primarily due to a larger number of studies examining their outcomes. This supports current clinical guidelines, which suggest utilizing PTSD treatments for individuals who have PTSD and are at risk for suicide. Suicide-focused and combined treatments also appeared to be promising formats, although additional research is needed. Future research should seek to compare the effectiveness of the approaches to the treatment of PTSD and suicidal thoughts and behaviors concurrently as well as to inform guidelines aimed at supporting decisions about the selection of an appropriate treatment approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]