ArticleContemporary clinical trials2024
Safety planning intervention and follow-up: A telehealth service model for suicidal individuals in emergency department settings: Study design and protocol.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Exploring barriers to crisis support: Considerations for the design of automated digital safety planning interventions.Journal of technology in behavioral science · 2026Article
- Workforce Investments in Telehealth Suicide Prevention in Emergency Departments: Implementation Costs of a Centralized Behavioral Health Consultation Service.The journal of behavioral health services & research · 2026Article
- Patient and Health Care Provider Experiences With Suicide-Related Tele-Mental Health Evaluations in the Emergency Department: Multiphase Qualitative Study.JMIR mental health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Safety Planning Intervention with follow-up services (SPI+) is a promising suicide prevention intervention, yet many Emergency Departments (EDs) lack the resources for adequate implementation. Comprehensive strategies addressing structural and organizational barriers are needed to optimize SPI+ implementation and scale-up. This protocol describes a test of one strategy in which ED staff connect at-risk patients to expert clinicians from a Suicide Prevention Consultation Center (SPCC) via telehealth.
methodThis stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial compares the effectiveness, implementation, cost, and cost offsets of SPI+ delivered by SPCC clinicians versus ED-based clinicians (enhanced usual care; EUC). Eight EDs will start with EUC and cross over to the SPCC phase. Blocks of two EDs will be randomly assigned to start dates 3 months apart. Approximately 13,320 adults discharged following a suicide-related ED visit will be included; EUC and SPCC samples will comprise patients from before and after SPCC crossover, respectively. Effectiveness data sources are electronic health records, administrative claims, and the National Death Index. Primary effectiveness outcomes are presence of suicidal behavior and number/type of mental healthcare visits and secondary outcomes include number/type of suicide-related acute services 6-months post-discharge. We will use the same data sources to assess cost offsets to gauge SPCC scalability and sustainability. We will examine preliminary implementation outcomes (reach, adoption, fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility) through patient, clinician, and health-system leader interviews and surveys.
conclusionIf the SPCC demonstrates clinical effectiveness and health system cost reduction, it may be a scalable model for evidence-based suicide prevention in the ED.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.