The CAMS Approach to Suicide Risk: Philosophy and Clinical Procedures

Full text

For example, key conceptual and theo-
retical contributors to this particular
approach include Shneidman (1985),
Beck (Beck et al., 1979), Baumeister
(1990), Orbach (2001), Linehan, (1993),
Maltsberger (1986), and Rudd (Rudd et
al, 2001).
Moreover, the CAMS approach
to care is heavily informed by empirical
evidence-particularly clinical trial re-
search of effective treatments (e.g., Brown
et al., 2005; Linehan et al., 2006). This
article is meant to provide a broad
over-
view to the evolving CAMS approach,
with a particular emphasis on its philo-
sophy and clinical procedures. The article
concludes with a brief discussion about
the current scientific status of CAMS as
on-going randomized clinical trails are
being actively pursued.
Simply stated, the CAMS approach to
suicidal patients is fundamentally focused
on the development of a strong therape-
utic relationship with a suicidal person
(i.e., the clinical alliance is the essential
vehicle for delivering a potentially life-
saving series of clinical interventions).
Within CAMS this goal is largely achie-
ved by intentionally engaging the suicidal
patient as an active participant in the
assessment of their own suicidal risk and
by collaborating with the patient as a
“co-author” of their suicide-specific treat-
ment plan. Thus, CAMS is both a philo-
sophy of care and a series clinical proce-
dures (guided by the use of the Suicide
Status Form-SSF) that are designed to
eliminate suicide as means of coping
while also helping to increase reasons for
living.
Philosophical Aspects of CAMS
As I have described elsewhere in depth
(Jobes, 1995; 2000; 2006) the CAMS
approach fundamentally conceptualizes
suicide differently from how many mental
health professionals were trained to think
about working with suicide risk in clinical
practice. For example, CAMS philosophy
forthrightly asserts that suicidal thinking
and behaviors are often a perfectly sensible
-
albeit worrisome and often troubling-
response to intense psychological pain
and suffering. In a similar sense, I would
contend that all suicidal persons have
struggles that are rooted in legitimate
needs and concerns-c.f., Orbach's (2001)
notion of “empathy for suicidal wish.”
For example, most suicidal people feel
they simply cannot bear the pain they
are in and they understandably seek an
escape from their suffering. Others
desperately want their loved ones to know
how much they suffer or feel compelled
to unburden those who love them. Still
other patients, in acute psychiatric dis-
tress, may feel compelled to perform acts
of self harm as a capitulation to punitive
voices they hear within a psychotic state.
In each of these scenarios, from the
intra-subjective perspective of the suicidal
person, there is a perfectly reasonable
and understandable explanation for sui-
cidal thoughts and behaviors. In my view
clinicians too often view suicidal thoughts
and feelings through a moralistic and
judgmental lens. In turn, such clinicians
often feel compelled to shame the patient
for having these feelings (c.f., Linehan,
1993). Within CAMS philosophy we
endeavor never to judge or moralize; sha-
ming the patient about suicidal thoughts
is anathema to the entire spirit of the
approach. In CAMS we simply seek to
understand how suicidal thoughts and
behaviors “work” for the suicidal patient.
When we truly understand the “functional”
aspects of suicidality, we are then much
better positioned to clinically propose
alternative and less life threatening ways
of coping and getting one's needs met.
When a clinician earnestly embraces this
kind of approach and tone, the net result
is that the suicidal patient feels
understood, respected, and appreci-ated
for these (often scary) ways of thinking
and feeling.
Beyond this attitude, the CAMS
clinician is also quite transparent about
their inherent bias – this is unabashedly
a suicide prevention-oriented approach
within clinical care. Thus, we would
never endorse suicide as a viable or
desirable “treatment option.” Moreover,
we are always forthright about laws related
to near term or imminent risk of suicide
that may require a voluntary or involun-
tary hospitalization of the patient. While
CAMS emphasizes working on an out-
patient basis, the approach is not funda-
mentally opposed to inpatient care and
would never advocate defying relevant
legal statutes pertaining to near term risk
of self harm.
To make this set of ideas a bit more
concrete, imagine the following inter-
action between a CAMS clinician and
a hypothetical suicidal patient. This dia-
logue embodies key features of the CAMS
philosophy of care.
Patient: I suffer so much and no one
seems to care; my husband just ignores
me – he gets mad at me and tells me to
get over it, snap out of it!
Clinician: You feel like no one appreciates
your struggles, particularly the person
want you most want to care?
Patient: It's not just him, it's everybody-
my parents, my kids, and my so called
friends…you know I honestly think
sometimes they would all be better off
without me…
Clinician: It sounds like you feel that
you have become a burden to them?
Does this view of things ever lead you to
thoughts of suicide?
Patient: Well yes, I have actually thought
about suicide quite a bit lately.
Clinician: I see…and when you think
The CAMS Approach to Suicide Risk:
Philosophy and clinical procedures
The CAMS approach to suicide risk: Philosophy and clinical procedures
3
SUICIDOLOGI 2009, ÅRG. 14, NR. 1
By David A. Jobes
The various and considerable challenges to effectively assessing and treating suicidal patients have
truly plagued the field of suicidology for many years (Jobes, Rudd, Overholser, & Joiner, 2008). The
Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) is a relatively new therapeutic
clinical framework that endeavors to address a number of these inherent challenges (Jobes, 2006).
The CAMS approach described in this article has applied and adapted seminal work of many well-
known clinical suicidologists who pioneered new and innovative ways of thinking about suicidal
states with related implications for clinical care therein.

about suicide does it upset you or comfort
you? Does it frighten you? Or instead,
does it give you a feeling of control and
power over your suffering?
Patient: It is more the latter because it
does make me feel like there is at least
one thing I can do about this whole
wretched situation that I am in…I just
can't bear the pain...it is all too much for
me…
Clinician: I see…well let's be frank…of
course suicide is an option that many
people use to cope with these exact
feelings. And yet if it was the best thing
to do, it seems unlikely that you would
be here with me in a mental health care
setting, right? From my bias, while I
acknowledge the option of suicide for
certain people, I would like to see if we
could find a way to end your pain, and
get your needs met, without you needing
to take your life. In my mind, you have
everything to gain and really nothing to
lose by earnestly trying to engage in a
life-saving treatment. There is a treat-
ment I would like to try with you called
“CAMS”-it is designed to help you learn
to cope differently and better and it could
help you get your needs met without
having to rely on suicide. To this end,
I wonder if I could persuade you – if you
would consider – engaging for 3 months
in this suicide-focused treatment…I really
think it could be quite helpful to you.
Patient: Well that is asking a lot…I really
don't know if I am up for doing something
like that…
Clinician: Yes, I understand; but then
again you have everything to gain and
really nothing to lose. While it is not my
preferred means of coping, you always
have the prospect of suicide to fall back
on later when you are not engaged in a
life saving clinical treatment. But for
now, I would like to see if we could find
a way to make this life more worth living
through this approach. Given the life
and death consequences, I do not think
it is too much to ask of you to give this
CAMS approach a go for three months…
what do you say?
Patient: I guess we can try, maybe it can
help? But you are right, the reason I am
here is that I am just not yet ready to
exercise my suicide option… How exactly
do we do this CAMS?
For many clinicians the above inter-
action may seem provocative and it may
make them uncomfortable. I would con-
tend however that the above interaction
is honest, transparent, empathic, and
creates the best possible conditions for
engaging a suicidal person in a poten-
tially life-saving course of clinical care.
Because CAMS so heavily emphasizes
informed consent, full and transparent
disclosure of clinician biases and agenda,
there is a kind of comfort and sense of
control within this approach that pro-
vides a real prospect for collaboratively
learning how the clinical dyad can save
the patient's life by developing alternative
ways of coping rendering suicidal coping
obsolete.
CAMS Clinical Procedures
While philosophical aspects of CAMS
are an important foundation, the approach
itself is made up of a series of clinical
procedures that have been developed
and empirically studied in real-world
clinical settings (Jobes, Bryan, & Neal-
Walden, 2009). As noted at the outset,
the CAMS approach employs the use of
a multipurpose SSF tool (refer to Appen-
dix A for an example of the first two
pages). The full SSF (seven total pages)
provides a means for: (a) the initial
assessment and documentation of suicidal
risk, (b) the initial development and
documentation of a suicide-specific
treatment plan, (c) the tracking and
documentation of on-going suicidal risk
assessment and up-dates of the treatment
plan, and (d) the ultimate accounting
and documentation of clinical outcomes.
The most detailed discussion of CAMS
procedures can be found elsewhere (Jobes,
2006). However, Jobes and Drozd (2004)
have succinctly described the following
step-by-step process for using CAMS in
outpatient care.
Step 1 – Early Identification of Risk
Typically the entry point for a new or
ongoing patient to be engaged in CAMS
occurs when a patient self-reports current
suicidal ideation. While a patient's verbal
self-report of ideation is an acceptable
entry point to CAMS, the preferred and
recommended approach is for CAMS to
be triggered by a psychometrically sound
symptom-oriented assessment tool which
typically have a suicide question embedded
among other symptom-related questions
(for a full discussion of the SSF “Core
Assessment” and psychometrics see Jobes,
2006 and Conrad et al., in press). For
our part, we think of the regular use of
brief symptom assessments collected at
every clinical contact is akin to medical
personnel routinely taking a patient's
vital signs. Moreover, such tools provide
extensive documentation and opportuni-
ties to study the nature of treatment pro-
cess and outcomes. Whatever the case,
early identification of suicidality is crucial
to using CAMS and fully realizing the
benefits of collaborative assessment and
treatment planning. Clearly, suicidal
ideation is not something that should be
identified in the last ten minutes of a
clinical hour. In CAMS, current suicidal
thoughts are to be identified within the
first ten minutes of clinical contact and
addressed as forthrightly as possible.
Step 2 – Collaborative Assessment
Using the SSF
CAMS is thus triggered by the presence
of current suicidal ideation as revealed
through a symptom assessment form or
verbal query. The collaborative in-depth
assessment of suicidal risk thus begins by
asking the patient for permission to lite-
rally take a seat next to them in order to
complete the first page of the Suicide
Status Form together. In this fashion, a
clipboard (or laptop) is handed back and
forth between the patient and clinician
during the assessment; literally and figura-
tively the dyad endeavor to work off the
same (assessment) page. As shown in
Appendix A, the first page of the SSF
involves completion of various rating
scales, qualitative assessments, and ran-
kings. These assessment constructs pro-
vide plenty of opportunity for discussion
and joint effort. The SSF assessment pro-
vides an important framework for under-
standing the idiosyncratic nature of the
patient's suicidality so that both parties
can intimately appreciate the patient's
suicidal experience. Completion of page
1 (i.e., Section A) of the SSF typically
takes 10-15 minutes. This initial joint
assessment activity then leads to the
clinician taking back the clipboard
The CAMS approach to suicide risk: Philosophy and clinical procedures
4
SUICIDOLOGI 2009, ÅRG. 14, NR. 1

(or lap-top) and completing the clinical
assessment at the top of page 2 (i.e.,
Section B) which was specifically con-
structed to assess for the most pernicious
risk variables according to recent empi-
rical research (Joiner, Walker, Rudd, &
Jobes, 1999; Oordt et al., 2003).
Step 3 – Collaborative Treatment
Planning
As can be seen in the Appendicized
example, when sections A and B are
complete, the dyad is then in a position
to “co-author” the Outpatient Treatment
Plan (Section C). Critically, both parties
have achieved together a thorough under-
standing about the patient's suicidal
experience, thereby revealing what must
be done to achieve and justify outpatient
care. Outpatient care is the explicit goal
of the CAMS clinician, which represents
perhaps a different orientation from con-
ventional thinking which can be biased
in favor of inpatient care (Jobes, 2000).
In this regard, the first problem to address
is self harm potential and the first goal
and objective is outpatient safety. By be-
ginning the focus on outpatient care, the
dyad can work to figure out the specific
interventions and elements of a “Crisis
Response Plan” which must be establis-
hed for outpatient care to proceed (refer
to Rudd et al., 2001). Two other suicide-
relevant problems, goals and objectives,
should then be identified from sections
A and B assessment data obtained from
the SSF. Critically, CAMS relies on the
Crisis Response Plan as the major inter-
vention for Problem #1. In our current
treatment-oriented research, the Crisis
Response Plan must include: (a) elimi-
nation of access to lethal means, (b)
development and use of a “Crisis Card,”
(c) efforts to interpersonally connect the
patient to others (refer to Jobes, 2006).
When the Outpatient Treatment Plan is
complete, the patient is then operatio-
nally understood to be on Suicide Status;
on-going suicide risk is then monitored
and tracked at each subsequent clinical
contact (using the SSF Suicide Tracking
Form). As discussed by Jobes (2006) an
additional page of documentation is also
included with the SSF that provides an
opportunity to document mental status,
The CAMS approach to suicide risk: Philosophy and clinical procedures
1) How much is being suicidal related to thoughts and feelings about yourself?
1) How much is being suicidal related to thoughts and feelings about others?
Low stress: :High stress
12345
2) Rate stress (your general feeling of being pressured or overwhelmed):
What I find most stressful is:
uncertain about future
What I find most painful is: no job, isolated
Low pain: :High pain
12345
1) Rate psychological pain (hurt, anguish, or misery in your mind;
not stress; not physical pain):
Low agitation: :High agitation
12345
3) Rate agitation (emotional urgency; feeling that you need to take action;
not irritation; not annoyance):
I most need to take action when:
at night, when I go to bed
Low hopelessness: :High hopelessness
12345
4) Rate hopelessness (your expectation that things will not get better
no matter what you do):
I am most hopeless about:
everything, things never work out for me
Low self-hate: :High self-hate
12345
Extremely low risk:
(will not kill self)
:Extremely high risk:
(will kill self)
12345
6) Rate overall risk of suicide
Not at all: :Completely
12345
Not at all: :Completely
12345
Please list your reasons for wanting to live and your reasons for wanting to die.
Then rank in order of importance 1 to 5.
Rank REASONS FOR LIVING
3 my intelligence
1 a good job
2 finding someone to love
4 my brother
Rank REASONS FOR DYING
2 things never work out
1
can’t take the pain
3
won’t find healthy relationship
4
I hate myself like this
I wish to live to the following extent
Not at all: :Very much
12345678
The one thing that would help me no longer feel suicidal would be:
to find a job and a good relationship
I wish to die to the following extent
Not at all: :Very much
12345678
SUICIDE STATUS FORM–III (SSF III) INITIAL SESSION
Rate and fill out each item according to how you feel right now.
Then rank items in order of importance 1 to 5 (1= most important to 5= least importance)
Patient: Clinician: Date: Time:
Rank
N/A
3
1
5
4
2
Section A (Patient):
5
SUICIDOLOGI 2009, ÅRG. 14, NR. 1
5) Rate self-hate (your general feeling of disliking yourself; having no
self-esteem; having no self-respect):
What I hate most about myself is: being lost – again

diagnosis, overall assessment of risk and
case notes (all seven pages of the SSF
are available in the Jobes, 2006 text).
Step 4 – Clinical Tracking of Suicide
Status
At each subsequent clinical contact,
the patient's self report SSF assessment
is quickly completed at the start of each
session; at the end of the session the
Outpatient Treatment Plan is revisited,
revised, and/or up-dated (side-by-side)
depending on clinical progress or any
new emerging suicidal issues that need
to become a focus of treatment.
Step 5 – Clinical Resolution of Suicide
Status
Three consecutive sessions of no suici-
dal thoughts, feelings, and behaviors marks
the resolution on suicide risk; the SSF
Suicide Tracking Outcome Forms are
completed and the patient is taken off
Suicide Status as CAMS comes to a close
(refer to Jobes, 2006; Jobes et al., 1997).
In summary, CAMS engages the
suicidal patient differently than conven-
tional approaches, thereby creating a
different treatment trajectory. This
trajectory is fundamentally shaped by an
enhanced therapeutic alliance forged in
the shared pursuit of trying to assess and
understand what it means for the patient
to be suicidal and with that shared know-
ledge determining how that risk will be
clinically managed and eliminated.
Current CAMS Treatment
Research
CAMS is very much a living-breathing
and evolving clinical approach that is
based on “real world” clinical research
(Drozd, Jobes, & Luoma, 2000; Eddins
& Jobes, 1994; Jobes & Berman, 1993;
Jobes, 1995; 2000; 2003; 2006; Jobes &
Drozd, 2004; Jobes & Mann, 1999; 2000;
Jobes et al., 1997; 2004; 2005; 2007; in
press). A recent study has replicated and
extended earlier research (Jobes et al.,
1997) pertaining to the validity and
reliability of the SSF “Core Assessment”
(Conrad et al., in press). Moreover, there
is a growing body of correlational data
providing encouraging results about the
clinical use of CAMS and the SSF.
The CAMS approach to suicide risk: Philosophy and clinical procedures
6
SUICIDOLOGI 2009, ÅRG. 14, NR. 1
SUICIDE STATUS FORM–III (INITIAL SESSION) (PAGE 2)
Section B (Clinician):
Section B (Clinician):
Problem
#
Problem
description
Goals and objectives
Evidence for attainment
Intervention
(Type and frequency)
Estimated #
sessions
Self-harm
potential
Outpatient
safety
unemploy-
ment
find a job
social
isolation
social support
vocational assessment
& counseling
Problem solve to
social support
2 x/wk
for 4 weeks
4 weeks
4 weeks
Crisis response plan
Crisis card / avoid bridge/
read Choosing to live
1
2
3
OUTPATIENT TREATMENT PLAN (Refer to Sections A & B)
YES NO
YES NO
Patient understands and commits to outpatient treatment plan?
Clear and imminent danger of suicide?
When:
Where:
How:
How:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
1–2
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Describe:
Y N Suicide plan
Y N Suicide preparation
Y N Suicide rehearsal
Y N History of suicidality
• Ideation
• Frequency
• Duration
• Single attempt
• Multiple attempts
Y N Current intent
Y N Impulsivity
Y N Substance abuse
Y N Significant loss
Y N Interpersonal isolation
Y N Relationship problems
Y N Health problems
Y N Physical pain
Y N Legal problems
Y N Shame
not sure
jump off bridge
jump
maybe use rifle
wrote note to brother
picked spot on bridge to jump
as a teen had significant suicidal thoughts
per day per week
per month
seconds minutes hours
30 I
n/a
n/a
no attempts, only ideation
feel must do something for pain
obsessing over past girfriend
feels he has cut himself off from others
over father & family issues
Y N Access to means
Y N Access to means
(not now)
Patient signature Date Clinician signature Date
now

The CAMS approach to suicide risk: Philosophy and clinical procedures
In one non-randomized control group
design, CAMS care was associated with
more rapid reductions of suicidal ideation
and decreased use of non-mental health
care (primary care and emergency de-
partment visits) than treatment as usual
(Jobes et al., 2005). Moreover, in a recent
within-group treatment study of suicidal
college students using linear analyses of
care over multiple time points, SSF/
CAMS care was associated with marked
reductions in overall symptom distress
and frequency of suicidal thoughts (Jobes
et al., in press). Based on these encour-
aging correlational data, we are currently
pursuing three randomized clinical trial
feasibility studies of CAMS in two out-
patient clinics and in one inpatient
setting. With accumulating feasibility
data we will soon be in position to pursue
well-powered “gold standard” randomized
clinical trials to rigorously study the
potential effectiveness of the CAMS
approach.
Summary
CAMS is an evolving therapeutic frame-
work supported by 15 years of clinical
research. As described in this article, the
approach emphasizes both a therapeutic
philosophy and a set of clinical proce-
dures. CAMS utilizes the SSF as a multi-
purpose road map that guides clinical
assessment, treatment, and tracking of
suicidal risk. The approach is designed
to foster a strong therapeutic alliance
and increase motivation within the
suicidal patient. Indeed, suicidal patients
themselves are the key to successful CAMS
care, as they acquire and craft new coping
skills and perhaps begin a process of
finding purpose and meaning in a life
that may have otherwise been lost to
suicide.
References
Conrad, A. K., Jacoby, A. M., Jobes, D. A., Line-
berry, T. Jobes, D., Shea, C., Fritsche, K., Schmid,
P., Ellenbecker, S., Grenell, J., & Arnold-Ewing,
T. (in press). A psychometric investigation of
the suicide status form with suicidal inpatients.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior.
Baumeister, R. F. (1990). Suicide as escape from
self. Psychological Review, 97, 90-113.
Beck, A. T., Rush, A. J., Shaw, B. F., & Emery, G.
(1979). Cognitive therapy of depression. New
York: Guilford Press.
Brown, G. K., Ten Have, T., Henriques, G. R.,
Xie, Sharon X., Hollander, J. E., & Beck, A. T.
(2005). Cognitive therapy for the prevention of
suicide attempts: A randomized controlled trial.
Cognitive Therapy for the Prevention of Suicide.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 29,
563-570
Drozd, J. F., Jobes, D. A., & Luoma, J. B. (2000).
The collaborative assessment and management
of suicidality in air force mental health clinics.
The Air Force Psychologist, 18, 6-11.
Eddins, C. L., & Jobes, D. A. (1994). Do you see
what I see? Patient and clinician perceptions of
underlying dimensions of suicidality. Suicide
and Life-Threatening Behavior, 24, 170-173.
Jobes, D. A. (1995). The challenge and the
promise of clinical suicidology. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 25, 437-449.
Jobes, D. A. (2000). Collaborating to prevent
suicide: A clinical-research perspective. Suicide
and Life-Threatening Behavior, 30, 8-17.
Jobes, D. A. (2003). Understanding suicide in
the 21st century. Preventing Suicide: The
National Journal, 2, 2-4.
Jobes, D. A. (2006). Managing suicidal risk: A
collaborative approach. New York: The Guilford
Press.
Jobes, D. A., & Berman, A. L. (1993). Suicide
and malpractice liability: Assessing and revi-
sing policies, procedures, and practice in outpati-
ent settings. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice, 24, 91-99.
Jobes, D. A., Bryan, C. J., & Neal-Walden, T. A.
(2009). Conducting suicide research in
naturalistic clinical settings. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 65, 1-14.
Jobes, D. A., & Drozd, J. F. (2004). The CAMS
approach to working with suicidal patients. Jour-
nal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 34, 73-85.
Jobes, D. A., Jacoby, A. M., Cimbolic, P., & Hus-
tead, L. A. T. (1997). The assessment and
treatment of suicidal clients in a university
counseling center. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 44, 368-377.
Jobes, D. A., Kahn-Greene, E., Greene, J., &
Goeke-Morey, M. (in press). Clinical improve-
ments of suicidal outpatients: Examining suicide
status form responses as moderators. Archives
of Suicide Research.
Jobes, D. A., & Mann, R. E. (1999). Reasons for
living versus reasons for dying: Examining the
internal debate of suicide. Suicide and Life-
Threatening Behavior, 29, 97-104.
Jobes, D. A., & Mann, R. E. (2000). Letters to
the editor-Reply. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 30, 182.
Jobes, D. A., Nelson, K. N., Peterson, E. M., Pen-
tiuc, D., Downing, V., Francini, K., & Kiernan,
A. (2004). Describing suicidality: An investiga-
tion of qualitative SSF responses. Suicide and
Life-Threatening Behavior, 34, 99-112.
Jobes, D. A, Moore, M., & O'Connor S. S. (2007).
Working with suicidal clients using the
collaborative assessment and management of
suicidality (CAMS). Journal of Mental Health
Counseling, 29, 283-300.
Jobes, D. A., Wong, S. A., Conrad, A., Drozd, J.
F., & Neal-Walden, T. (2005). The Collaborative
assessment and management of suicidality vs.
treatment as usual: A retrospective study with
suicidal outpatients. Suicide and Life-Threatening
Behavior, 35, 483-497.
Jobes, D. A., Rudd, M. D., Overholser, J. C., &
Joiner, T. E. (2008). Ethical and competent care
of suicidal patients: Contemporary challenges,
new developments, and considerations for clinical
practice. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39, 405-413.
Joiner, T. E., Walker, R. L., Rudd, M. D., & Jobes,
D. A. (1999). Scientizing and routinizing the
assessment of suicidality in outpatient practice.
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,
30, 447-453.
Linehan, M. M. (1993a). Cognitive behavioral
therapy of borderline personality disorder. New
York: Guilford Press.
Linehan, M. M., Comtois, K. A., Murray, A. M.,
Brown, M. Z., Gallop, R. J., Heard, H. L., Korslund,
K. E., Tutek, D. A., Reynolds, S. K., & Lindenboim,
N. (2006). Two-year randomized controlled trial
and follow-up of dialectical behavior therapy vs.
therapy by experts for suicidal behaviors and
borderline personality disorder. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 63, 757-766.
Maltsberger, J. T. (1986). Suicide risk: The for-
mulation of clinical judgment. New York: New
York University Press.
Oordt, M., Jobes, D., Rudd, M., Fonseca, V., Russ,
C., Stea, J., Campise, R., & Talcott, W. (2005).
Development of a clinical guide to enhance care
for suicidal patients. Professional Psychology:
Research and Practice. 36, 208-218.
Orbach, I. (2001). Therapeutic empathy with the
suicidal wish. American Journal of Psychotherapy,
55, 166-184.
Rudd, M. D., Joiner, T., & Rajab, M. H. (2001).
Treating suicidal behavior: An effective, time-
limited approach. New York: Guilford.
Shneidman, E. S. (1993). Suicide as psychache:
A clinical approach to self-destructive behavior.
Northvale, NJ: Aronson.
7
SUICIDOLOGI 2009, ÅRG. 14, NR. 1
David A. Jobes, Ph.D. is a
professor of psychology and
co-director of clinical train-
ing in the Ph.D. clinical
psychology training program
at The Catholic University
of America in Washington
DC. Dr. Jobes has published
extensively on suicide pre-
vention in scientific journals and various books
on the topic. He consults widely and routinely
provides professional training in clinical suici-
dology, ethics, and risk management.