The Treatment of Adolescent Suicide Attempters Study (TASA): Predictors of Suicidal Events in an Open Treatment Trial

University of Pittsburgh, Western Psychiatric Institute & Clinic, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA.
Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 6.35). 09/2009; 48(10):987-96. DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e3181b5dbe4
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To identify the predictors of suicidal events and attempts in adolescent suicide attempters with depression treated in an open treatment trial.
Adolescents who had made a recent suicide attempt and had unipolar depression (n =124) were either randomized (n = 22) or given a choice (n = 102) among three conditions. Two participants withdrew before treatment assignment. The remaining 124 youths received a specialized psychotherapy for suicide attempting adolescents (n = 17), a medication algorithm (n = 14), or the combination (n = 93). The participants were followed up 6 months after intake with respect to rate, timing, and predictors of a suicidal event (attempt or acute suicidal ideation necessitating emergency referral).
The morbid risks of suicidal events and attempts on 6-month follow-up were 0.19 and 0.12, respectively, with a median time to event of 44 days. Higher self-rated depression, suicidal ideation, family income, greater number of previous suicide attempts, lower maximum lethality of previous attempt, history of sexual abuse, and lower family cohesion predicted the occurrence, and earlier time to event, with similar findings for the outcome of attempts. A slower decline in suicidal ideation was associated with the occurrence of a suicidal event.
In this open trial, the 6-month morbid risks for suicidal events and for reattempts were lower than those in other comparable samples, suggesting that this intervention should be studied further. Important treatment targets include suicidal ideation, family cohesion, and sequelae of previous abuse. Because 40% of events occurred with 4 weeks of intake, an emphasis on safety planning and increased therapeutic contact early in treatment may be warranted.


Available from: Kelly Posner, Dec 27, 2013
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the high prevalence of psychiatric emergency (PE) visits for attempted suicide and nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI) among adolescents, we have limited information about assessment tools that are helpful in predicting subsequent risk for suicide attempts among adolescents in PE settings. This study examined the predictive validity of a highly promising instrument, the Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS).
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is widely accepted that suicidal behavior often occurs with little planning. We propose, however, that suicidal behavior is rarely if ever impulsive-that it is too frightening and physically distressing to engage in without forethought-and that suicidal behavior in impulsive individuals is accounted for by painful and fearsome behaviors capable of enhancing their capacity for suicide. We conducted a meta-analysis of the association between trait impulsivity and suicidal behavior and a critical review of research considering the impulsiveness of specific suicide attempts. Meta-analytic results suggest the relationship between trait impulsivity and suicidal behavior is small. Furthermore, studies examining a mediating role of painful and provocative behaviors have uniformly supported our model. Results from our review suggest that researchers have been unable to adequately measure impulsivity of attempts and that measures sensitive to episodic planning must be developed to further our understanding of this phenomenon.
    Personality and Social Psychology Review 06/2014; 18(4). DOI:10.1177/1088868314535988 · 7.55 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale has become the gold standard for the assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior in clinical trials. Criticism of the instrument has been mounting. We examine whether the instrument meets widely accepted psychometric standards and maps to the United States Food and Drug Administration’s most recent 2012 algorithm for assessment of suicidal phenomena. Our goal is to determine if the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale should be retained as the preferred instrument for assessment of suicidal ideation and behavior. Method: Standard psychometric criteria dictate that categorizations to avoid type I and type II errors should be comprehensive and address the full spectrum (i.e., all dimensions) of a phenomenon. The criteria should also be well defined and consistent, and the wording throughout should be unambiguous. We examine the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale in terms of these criteria. Results: The Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale does not address the full spectrum of suicidal ideation or behavior. As a result, it has the potential to miss many combinations of suicidal ideation and behavior that present to clinicians in practice (type II error). Potential misclassifications (type I and II errors) are compounded by flawed navigation instructions; mismatches in category titles, definitions, and probes; and wording that is susceptible to multiple interpretations. Further, the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale in its current form does not map to the 2012 Food and Drug Administration’s draft classification algorithm for suicidal ideation and behavior. Conclusion: The evidence suggests that the Columbia–Suicide Severity Rating Scale is conceptually and psychometrically flawed and does not map to the Food and Drug Administration’s new standards. A new gold standard for assessment of suicidality may be warranted.