Effectiveness of Suicide-Focused Psychosocial Interventions in Psychosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Objective:
Suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death are significant and prevalent concerns among individuals with psychosis. Previous studies have focused on risk factors, but few have systematically evaluated the effect of psychosocial interventions on these experiences among individuals with psychosis. This study evaluated the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions in reducing suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychotic symptoms.
Methods:
Eight electronic databases were systematically searched from inception until June 30, 2019. Identified studies included both randomized controlled trials and controlled trials without randomization that examined psychosocial interventions for suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychotic symptoms. A random-effects model was used to pool the effect sizes for synthesis.
Results:
Eleven studies with 14 effect sizes (N=4,829 participants) were analyzed. The average age of participants ranged from 21 to 51, and most participants identified as male and non-Hispanic Caucasian or Chinese and were in an early or first-episode stage of illness. On average, participants who received psychosocial interventions were less likely than their counterparts in the control group to report suicide ideation, plan, and attempt and die by suicide (odds ratio [OR]=0.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.41–0.78). Subgroup analyses further revealed significant reductions in suicide ideation (OR=0.73, 95% CI=0.55–0.97) and suicide death (OR=0.45, 95% CI=0.30–0.68) among intervention participants.
Conclusions:
Preliminary evidence indicated that psychosocial interventions are effective in reducing suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychotic symptoms. Intervention characteristics, however, varied across studies, which suggests a lack of consensus on best clinical practices.
HIGHLIGHTS
•
Few studies have evaluated the effect of psychosocial treatments on suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychosis—a population particularly at risk of suicide.
•
A systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that psychosocial treatments reduced the occurrence of suicide ideation, plan, attempt, or death among persons with psychosis and that those who experienced suicidality had significant reductions in suicide ideation and death.
•
Psychosocial treatments are effective in reducing suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychosis, and future research should focus on comparing multiple treatment protocols for individuals with psychotic symptoms.
Suicide is a leading cause of preventable death in the United States and worldwide (1, 2). Pertaining to this rising public health concern, psychotic disorders, including schizophrenia, are associated with a significantly higher risk of suicide compared with the risk in the general population (3–5). Literature suggests that the risk of suicide death in this population has been found to be 10 to 20 times higher than that in the general population (6, 7). Pertaining to ideation, plan, and attempt, a systematic review and meta-analysis by Yates and colleagues (8) of 10 studies identified an increased risk of suicide ideation and attempt among individuals with psychotic experiences compared with the general population. Highlighting the clinical importance of this finding, a growing body of literature supports the strong associations between psychosis, suicide ideation, attempt, and suicide death. Data indicate that 40%−50% of individuals diagnosed as having schizophrenia experience suicidal thoughts (9), 20%−50% attempt suicide (10), and 4%−13% end life by suicide (9, 11). Given that symptoms of psychosis are a clinical marker of risk of future suicidal behavior (8), suicide ideation, plan, and attempt are important factors and treatment targets within this at-risk population.
Despite the impact of suicidality on public health, knowledge of risk and protective factors for suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychosis is limited; in particular, effective evidence-based interventions aimed at suicide prevention in this population are lacking (3, 10, 12). Although a number of studies have evaluated risk factors related to both suicide ideation and attempt among individuals with schizophrenia and psychosis (12–20), few controlled trials have been conducted investigating the effectiveness of psychosocial (i.e., nonpharmacological therapeutic interventions that address the psychological, social, personal, relational, or vocational problems associated with mental disorders) interventions for addressing suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death in this population. Tarrier and colleagues (21) conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine cognitive-behavioral interventions to reduce suicidal behavior (suicide ideation, plan, attempt, or suicide death) among adolescents and adults in different diagnostic groups. A significant effect was found in 28 studies for cognitive-behavioral interventions in reducing suicidal behavior; however, the samples primarily included individuals without psychosis.
To date, little is known about the efficacy of existing interventions specifically designed to address risk of suicide among individuals with psychosis, and no prior meta-analyses of psychosocial interventions in this population have been published in this important area. Donker and colleagues (22) published a systematic review of suicide prevention among those with schizophrenia spectrum disorders and psychosis; however, these authors did not produce a meta-analysis because of the small number of analyzable studies (N=6). Therefore, because suicide is a leading cause of death among individuals with schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorders (3–7, 23–25), existing empirically supported therapeutic interventions for individuals experiencing psychosis may benefit markedly from an evaluation of effective treatments targeting risk of ideation, attempt, and suicide death. Furthermore, identifying efficacious therapeutic interventions for suicide prevention in this population could improve clinical care and highlight strategies for use in treatment efforts in early phases of illness, guide ensuing public health and psychiatric research, and lead to an overall reduction of the high prevalence of suicide in this population. Accordingly, given these objectives, the study reported here was a systematic review and meta-analysis that included controlled trials of suicide-focused psychosocial interventions for individuals with psychosis. We hypothesized that psychosocial interventions with a focus on suicide prevention would be related to reductions in suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychosis.
Methods
Search Strategy
The literature search was led by an experienced meta-analyst (A.Z.) in consultation with the university health sciences librarian to identify all relevant literature reporting on psychosocial interventions for suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with psychotic symptoms. The search period covered the years from inception to June 30, 2019. Following the Cochrane guideline, the team conducted an extensive search of literature across eight electronic databases and a manual search of four major psychiatry journals, two professional Web sites (gray literature), and reference lists in included studies (see online supplement for a detailed search protocol). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for reporting of systematic reviews were followed and fulfilled. Covidence, a Cochrane-recommended software, was used to manage the screening process (see online supplement ). Our study was exempt from institutional review board review because it examined the report of published data and effect sizes.
Study Selection
Two authors (J.L. and M.H.) independently assessed all titles and abstracts along with the full text of potentially relevant articles. To be eligible for inclusion, a study needed to be a controlled trial; evaluate psychosocial interventions (nonmedical, nonpharmacological behavioral treatments); include suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death variables, with intent to die; include individuals with psychotic symptoms; and be written in English. If a study included individuals with a history of psychotic symptoms but no current symptoms, it was excluded. The presence of psychotic symptoms was determined by the report of inclusion criteria involving diagnosis or use of a screening process to identify psychosis (e.g., Mini Neuropsychiatric Interview). We decided before conducting the search that if a study included both individuals with and without psychotic symptoms, it would be included only if over 70% of the participants reported the presence of psychotic symptoms. Also, studies were excluded if outcomes involved nonsuicidal self-injurious behavior.
Data Extraction
A predeveloped coding sheet was used to extract the following data (see online supplement ). First, bibliographical information included authors, title, geographic area of the study, and type of report. Second, participant characteristics included age, gender, race-ethnicity, marital status, duration of psychosis, and socioeconomic status. Third, study design included the nature of the intervention (i.e., psychotherapeutic intervention versus case management), intervention integrity (i.e., cognitive-behavioral therapy [CBT] only versus CBT plus motivational interviewing), randomization method, comparison group type (i.e., treatment as usual or waitlist attention control), intervention format, and delivery setting. Fourth, intervention fidelity included provider discipline, educational background, clinical experience, whether the provider received training, and whether the provider received ongoing supervision during the study. Finally, outcome variables and their respective measurement were identified. Interscreener and interrater reliability were satisfactory, with consensus rates of 95% and 89%, respectively. All disagreements were resolved either through discussion between the two coders or by an independent third coder (L.A.B.).
Quality Assessment
The risk of bias of the included trials was assessed by using both the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias (26) and the Jadad scale for reporting randomized controlled trials (i.e., the Oxford quality scoring system) (27). Although the two assessment tools are similar overall, the two tools provided complementary evaluation information and were both included in our quality assessment.
Statistical Analysis
Trials eligible for this meta-analysis used continuous and categorical variables to assess suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death. For continuous outcomes, we calculated standardized mean differences (i.e., the Hedges’s g statistics) as treatment effect size estimates. For categorical outcomes, we calculated odds ratios (ORs) as treatment effect size estimates. In order to pool Hedges’s g effect size estimates and OR effect size estimates together, we converted the Hedges’s g effect size estimates into the OR metric so that all effect size estimates were comparable to each other (28). We then estimated between-study heterogeneity by using Cochran’s Q test and I2 to aid the meta-analysis modeling strategy between using a fixed- versus a random-effects model. In cases when a study presented more than one effect size for the same construct, we selected one effect size that was most comparable to other effect sizes in terms of time of assessment (e.g., postintervention assessment). In cases when a study presented more than one construct (e.g., both suicide ideation and suicide attempt outcomes were presented), we included all outcomes in our final analysis. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to evaluate whether such analytical decisions changed the results.
Moderator Analysis via Meta-Regression
Given the heterogeneity statistic (Q=12.46, df=13, p=0.41, I2=84%) and the variation in conceptual understandings of psychosocial interventions across different populations, outcomes, and interventions, we used a random-effects meta-regression model to explore whether outcome type, treatment type (i.e., therapeutic versus supportive intervention), illness phase (i.e., first-episode psychosis versus midrange psychosis versus chronic psychosis), and treatment modality (i.e., individual versus family-based interventions) moderated treatment effect. The analysis was carried out using the rma and metagen function from the metafor package in the R software program.
Results
Search Results, Study Characteristics, and Quality of Studies
Of an initial pool of 1,189 records (after duplications were removed), 18 studies were eligible for full-text review. A total of 16 studies were included for systematic review, and 11 studies that included 14 effect sizes were included in the meta-analysis (N=4,829 participants). Eight studies reported OR statistics, and three studies reported standardized mean difference statistics. Study characteristics are presented in Table 1 (3, 29–43). Overall, the included studies reported satisfactory quality of rating and relatively low risk of bias (for details, see the online supplement ).
| Study | Samplea | Demographic factorsb | Control descriptionc | Intervention providers | Treatment descriptiond | Suicide outcomee | Psychosis and suicide measurementf | Setting and duration of psychosisg |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agius et al., 2007 (29)h | T=40; C=40 | Age, 24.5; female, 30%; white, 42% | TAU | Multidisciplinary team (psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, and psychologists) | Early psychosis intervention, including assertive treatment and individual and family psychoeducation for 3 years; frequency and session length, NR | SA | BPRS, PANSS | NHS; first-episode psychosis |
| Albert et al., 2017 (30)h | T=197; C=203 | Age, 25.6±4.3; female, 46.2%; race-ethnicity, NR | TAU | Interdisciplinary team (psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses, social workers, physiotherapists, and vocational therapists) | SEI program entitled OPUS, includes modified assertive treatment, family involvement, and social skills training for 5 years; sessions and duration per week, NR | SI | SCAN 2.1, SAPS, SANS, SI assessed by a single self-report item | CBMH; first-episode psychosis |
| Bateman et al., 2007 (31) | T=46; C=44 | Age, 39; female, 33%; white, 87% | Befriending intervention (providing company and general conversation on neutral topics) | Therapist (not defined) | CBT for 20 individual sessions over 9 months | SI | CPRS | CBMH; chronic schizophrenia (≥14 years) |
| Chan et al., 2015 (32)h | T=148; C=148 | Age, 21.9±3.1; female, 49.7%; Chinese, 94.5% | TAU | Teams of psychiatrists, clinicians (psychologists), and case managers (social workers) | EASY program for 2 years, followed by case management and outpatient treatment in year 3 | SA, SD | PANSS, SANS, CDSS | CBMH; first-episode psychosis |
| Chan et al., 2018 (33)h | T=617; C=617 | Age, 21.2±3.4; female, 48.5%; Chinese, 94.5% | TAU | Clinicians (not defined) | EASY program for 2 years; frequency and session length, NR | SA, SD | CGI-SCH | CBMH; first-episode psychosis |
| Chen et al., 2011 (34)h | T=700; C=700 | Age, 21.1±3.4; female, 48.6%; race, NR | TAU | Teams of clinicians (psychologists) and case managers (social workers) | EASY program for 3 years; frequency and session length, NR | SA, SD | CGI-S | CBMH; first-episode psychosis |
| Cunningham Owens et al., 2001 (35) | T=61; C=53 | Age, 21.1±10.6; female, 48.6%; race, NR | TAU | Psychiatrist | Intervention package with multiple components, including educational video and booklets | SI | ITAQ | HIO; second- or later-episode schizophrenia |
| Färdig et al., 2011 (36)h | T=21; C=20 | Age, 40.38±6.6; female, 38%; race, NR | TAU | Mental health practitioners (details NR) | IMR program, including psychoeducation, social skills training, relapse prevention, behavioral tailoring for treatment adherence, and coping skills training for managing stress and symptoms; 40 60-minute sessions of mixed interventions over 36 weeks | SI | PECC | MHC; psychosis duration, NR |
| Kasckow et al., 2016 (37)h | T=25; C=26 | Age, 51.1±11.5; female, 4%; white, 76% | TAU | Social workers and mental health nurses | 10 15-minute weekly assessment sessions over 12 weeks, accompanied by daily telehealth monitoring via Health Buddy program | SI | BSSI, SAPS, SANS | HIO; recently admitted VA inpatients with psychosis; duration, NR |
| Moritz et al., 2018 (38) | T=46; C=46 | Age, 36.91±1.9; female, 54.3%; race, NR | Cognitive training program (CogPack) | Psychologists | MCT for 12 sessions over 6 weeks | Details NRi | MINI, PANSS, PSYRATS | HIO; psychosis duration, NR |
| Nordentoft et al., 2002 (39)h | T=121; C=106 | Age, 27.0±6.3; female, 39.9%; race, NR | TAU | Psychiatrist, psychologist, nurse, vocational therapist, and social worker | Integrated treatment offered for 2 years, including assertive community treatment, antipsychotic medication, psychoeducational family treatment, and social skills training over 2 years | SI, SP, SA | SAPS, SANS, SCAN 2.0 | CBMH; first-episode psychosis |
| Peters et al., 2010 (40)h | T=36; C=38 | Age, 36.9±9.8; female, 37.8%; race, NR | Waitlist | Nonexpert cognitive-behavioral therapist for psychosis, full-time roles: psychologist, nurses, or psychiatrist | 6 months of CBT for psychosis by CBT therapist under supervision; 16 weekly individual sessions of up to 1 hour per session | Details NRj | BSI | CBMH; median 6 years of schizophrenia diagnosis |
| Power et al., 2003 (41) | T=31; C=25 | Age, NR; gender, NR | TAU | Mental health practitioners (details NR) | 8–10 sessions of cognitive therapy over 10 weeks | SI, SA | SIQ, SIS, RFL-24, BPRS, SANS | MHC; psychosis duration, NR |
| Tarrier et al., 2006 (42) | T=101; C=102 | Age, NR; female, 30%; white, 88.7% | TAU | 3 clinical psychologists and 2 nurse therapists | 15–20 hours of treatment within 5 weeks of admission, plus “booster” session at 2 weeks and at 1, 2, and 3 months after the initial treatment | SA | HoNOS | HIO; first-episode and early schizophrenia; first admission or within 2 years of first admission |
| Tarrier et al., 2014 (3)h | T=25; C=24 | Age, 34.9±13.1; female, 36.7%; white, 85.7% | TAU | Psychologists | CBT for 24-sessions over 12 weeks | SI, SP | ASIQ, BSSI, SPS, PANSS, PSYRATS | CBMH; psychosis duration, NR |
| Turkington et al., 2002 (43)h | T=257; C=165 | Age, 40.47±.35; female, 22.9%; white, 88.9% | TAU | Community psychiatric nurses | CBT for 6 60-minute sessions over 2 or 3 months | SI | SCS, CPRS | CBMH; psychosis duration, NR |
a
T, treatment group; C, control.
b
Age is shown as mean±SD, unless the SD was not reported (NR).
c
TAU, treatment as usual.
d
SEI, specialized early intervention; CBT, cognitive-behavioral therapy; EASY, Early Assessment Service for Young People with Psychosis; IMR, illness management and recovery; MCT, meta-cognitive therapy.
e
SI, suicide ideation; SP, suicide plan; SA, suicide attempt; SD, suicide death.
f
ASIQ, Adult Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire; BPRS, Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale; BSI, Beck Suicide Inventory; BSSI, Beck Scale for Suicidal Ideation; CDSS, Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia; CGI-S, Clinical Global Impressions–Severity Scale; CGI-SCH, Clinical Global Impressions Schizophrenia Scale; CPRS, Comprehensive Psychopathological Rating Scale; HoNOS, Nonaccidental self-injury scale as part of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales; ITAQ, Insight and Treatment Attitudes Questionnaire, suicidal thought item; MINI, Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview; PANSS, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale; PECC, Psychosis Evaluation Tool for Common Use by Caregivers; PSYRATS, Psychotic Symptoms Ratings Scales; RFL-24, Reasons for Living Scale; SANS, Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms; SAPS, Sale for the Assessment of Positive Symptoms; SCAN 2.0, Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry, version 2.0; SCAN 2.1, Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry, version 2.1; SCS, Schizophrenia Change Scale; SIQ, Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire; SIS, Suicide Intent Scale; SPS, Suicide Probability Scale.
g
MHC, mental health outpatient clinic; CBMH, community-based mental health services; HIO, hospital inpatient or outpatient setting; NHS, National Health Service (United Kingdom); VA, Department of Veterans Affairs.
h
Included in meta-analysis. Five of the 11 studies for meta-analysis reported attempt outcomes; however, only three attempt outcomes were statistically extractable and included in the meta-analysis.
i
Data reported as outcome per self-harm or suicide items of the MINI.
j
Using the BSI, with participants grouped into a suicidal group versus a nonsuicidal group.
Overall Pooled and Subgroup Meta-Analysis Result
A total of 11 studies (14 effect sizes) met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis: seven suicide ideation outcomes, three suicide attempt outcomes, three suicide death outcomes, and one suicide plan outcome. Because of the small sample size, we first pooled together all suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death variables for meta-analysis. Using a random-effects model (Q=79.63, df=13, p<0.01, I2=84%), the pooled OR of psychosocial interventions for all outcomes was 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI]=0.41–0.78). Specifically, for suicide ideation outcomes, a fixed-effects model (Q=7.68, df=6, p=0.26) reported a pooled OR of 0.73 (95% CI=0.55–0.97). For suicide death, a fixed-effects model (Q=3.10, df=2, p=0.21) reported a pooled OR of 0.45 (95% CI=0.30–0.68). Finally, a fixed-effects model (Q=1.81, df=2, p=0.40) of pooled suicide attempt outcomes revealed a nonsignificant OR of 0.78 (95% CI=0.57–1.07). Findings are presented in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1. Forest plot of meta-analysis of psychosocial interventions to reduce suicidal behavior among individuals with psychosisa
aPrediction interval=0.17–1.87; heterogeneity τ2=0.27; χ2=79.63, df=13, p<0.01; I2=84%.
Sensitivity analysis suggested that all results remained the same regardless of the analytical methods used, which strengthened the robustness of our findings (see online supplement for forest plot of the sensitivity analyses).
Exploratory Moderator and Subgroup Analysis
Given the significant heterogeneity across effect size estimates in the main model, we conducted exploratory analyses to determine whether the type of suicide outcome moderated treatment effect. Compared with the difference in treatment effect for suicide ideation outcomes, the difference in treatment effect for suicide plan, suicide attempt, and suicide death outcomes was not statistically significant (b=–0.38, b=0.06, and b=–0.48, respectively). Other exploratory moderator analyses investigating treatment type, illness phase, and delivery modality as potential moderators were all statistically nonsignificant (results not presented). In addition, exploratory subgroup analysis was performed that included only first-episode psychosis studies (N=6). The six studies reported an overall statistically significant treatment effect of psychosocial intervention for suicide outcomes (OR=0.72, p<0.001, and OR=0.61, p<0.001 using fixed- and random-effects models, respectively).
Discussion
Findings of this meta-analysis showed a statistically significant treatment effect that pooled across three (ideation, attempt, and suicide death) of the four outcomes of focus (ideation, plan, attempt, and suicide death) for controlled trials of suicide-focused psychosocial interventions for individuals with psychosis. Even though it is known that risk of suicide is significantly higher among individuals with psychosis compared with the general population (3–5), research on evidence-based interventions for suicide prevention in this vulnerable population is limited. Tarrier and colleagues’ (21) systematic review and meta-analysis found a significant treatment effect for cognitive-behavioral interventions in reducing suicidal behavior among different diagnostic groups. However, psychosocial interventions other than cognitive-behavioral approaches were not examined, the sample included adolescents in addition to adults, and only three of 28 studies included participants with psychosis.
Our finding that psychosocial interventions were related to a significant decrease in the suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death outcomes among individuals with psychosis is promising. A significant treatment effect for psychosocial interventions in relation to ideation and suicide death was found, but no effect was found for attempt. The limited number of empirical investigations of suicide-focused psychosocial interventions for individuals with psychosis makes it challenging to speculate about potential clinical reasons for the nonsignificant finding regarding suicide attempt. First, although some studies did not measure or report on attempt as an outcome, it is possible that some interventions reduced attempts and that the reduction was either not captured empirically or not reported. Second, because suicide prevention interventions inherently focus on suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death (i.e., an intervention cannot solely target attempt without addressing or touching upon ideation), it is possible that the main effect of treatment resided in a different or more prevalent outcome (e.g., ideation) compared with attempt. Finally, a third possible explanation is the potential role of impulsivity. Impulsivity is known to be related to suicide attempt, and data have shown that individuals with psychotic disorders display greater impulsivity compared with the general population (44). Although impulsive suicide attempts have not been examined in a population with psychosis, such attempts are related in the literature to lower levels of depression and lethality compared with planned attempts (45). As a result, it is possible that our finding of a nonsignificant effect for treatment of suicide attempt is related to the presence of impulsive versus planned attempt in this population. Future research is needed to examine this theory. Given these possibilities, however, it is important to note that the finding of a nonsignificant effect for treatment of suicide attempt is likely the result of only three studies meeting inclusion criteria with statistically extractable suicide attempt data, which limited the available data and statistical power. Furthermore, moderation analyses indicated that the pooled treatment effect did not differ significantly by suicide outcome; thus, the psychosocial interventions improved the suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death outcomes overall, without variation by ideation, attempt, or suicide death.
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, males outnumbered females in the included studies, and in the studies that reported race, most participants identified as non-Hispanic Caucasian or Chinese. Studies took place in various psychiatric settings and among participants whose average age ranged from 21 to 51. These descriptive details of the included studies are important because they highlight gaps on which future research can focus. Six studies did not report participants’ stage of illness, one study included participants with chronic illness (of more than 14 years), one included participants in a second episode of psychosis or later, one included participants with a median 6 years of illness, and seven included participants who were in an early or first-episode phase of illness. Studies on risk and protective factors for suicide tend to include participants with longer illness duration and chronic psychotic symptoms (46–49), and it is apparent that the psychosocial intervention literature is increasingly investigating the population experiencing a first episode in relation to suicide, which is particularly important given a higher risk of suicide among these individuals compared with individuals with longer duration of illness (50, 51). It was encouraging to observe that subgroup analysis of studies focusing only on participants in an early or first-episode stage of illness reported an overall statistically significant treatment effect, which provides preliminary support for the use of psychosocial interventions for suicidal intervention among these patients.
We observed that most participants randomly assigned to treatment conditions received either a mixture of therapeutic (e.g., CBT) and supportive (e.g., case management) interventions (N=8 studies) or therapeutic interventions (N=7 studies); cognitive (N=2 studies) and cognitive-behavioral (N=4 studies) interventions were most often delivered, which further supports the understanding that cognitive-behavioral interventions are among the most researched psychosocial treatments (52–54). Not only did we note a variety of treatment modalities for suicidal intervention among participants with psychosis, we also observed a wide range in the number of sessions delivered to participants—6 weeks to 5 years—suggesting that the field is testing a variety of lengths of treatment and pointing toward the need for dosage testing. As for providers, most reported being a trained psychiatric provider (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker), and others utilized an interdisciplinary team-based treatment structure (e.g., psychiatrist, psychologist, nurse, social worker, and vocational specialist). With increasing enthusiasm for multi- and interdisciplinary treatment teams in behavioral health care (2, 55–58), it is promising to observe that almost 40% of the studies reviewed here used a team-based delivery approach.
This study points toward the need for additional research on the relationship between psychosocial interventions and suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death among individuals with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, particularly given the small number of studies that met criteria for meta-analysis inclusion. Further investigations should examine the specific effects of interventions on the differing outcomes of suicide ideation, attempt, and suicide death. In particular, more research is needed regarding the effects of intervention on suicide attempts. Given the well-documented findings that suicide attempt and death vary by demographic factors, including age, gender, race, and education (59), more research is needed to understand how interventions affect differing experiences of suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death. Findings of such research could inform the adaptation and delivery of suicide prevention efforts based on a client’s clinical presentation and demographic risk factors.
This study must be considered in light of several potential limitations, many of which are inherent to systematic review and meta-analysis methodologies. First, despite a rigorous process for searching and reviewing the literature, it is always a possibility that not all available studies that met the inclusion criteria were included, which may have changed the overall findings, although this is unlikely. Second, although two independent reviewers engaged in a process of blind review and coding, results of this study remain susceptible to human error. Third, we included only controlled trials, which had an impact on the external validity of our findings because results from studies with quasi-experimental and nonexperimental designs were not considered. Fourth, generalizability of findings must be considered because most study participants identified as Chinese and as experiencing a first episode of psychosis.
Fifth, this study focused on psychosocial interventions targeting suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death. As a result, some empirically supported interventions for schizophrenia specifically were not included (e.g., social skills training [60] and supported employment [61]), because these interventions focus on outcomes other than suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death. Sixth, measurement of suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death outcomes varied across studies, with some using multi-item measures designed to assess for suicide outcomes and others using single items of a depression or general psychopathology scale. These differences in measurement may have influenced results, and this issue highlights the importance of future research using standardized multi-item scales validated to measure a given construct. Finally, findings of this study were likely to be affected by a small sample size, resulting in low statistical power. This further highlights the importance of conducting more high-quality trials focused on interventions for suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death.
Conclusions
Although individuals with schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders are at high risk of suicide, the literature on efficacy of psychosocial treatment approaches remains limited. This meta-analysis found that psychosocial interventions examined in 11 studies had a significant impact on reducing suicide ideation, plan, attempt, and death in this population. More research is needed, however, to determine how interventions differentially affect the specific outcomes of suicide ideation, attempt, and death. Further research in these areas can inform individualized adaptation and delivery of suicide prevention interventions based on clinical presentation and risk factors, offering tools to address an urgent and understudied issue in mental health care.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the authors of studies included in this meta-analysis for providing additional information upon request.
Supplementary Material
File (appi.ps.201900487.ds001.pdf)
- View/Download
- 316.31 KB
References
1.
Beaglehole R, Yach D: Globalisation and the prevention and control of non-communicable disease: the neglected chronic diseases of adults. Lancet 2003; 362:903–908
2.
Multi-Professional Patient Safety Curriculum Guide. Geneva, World Health Organization, 2011
3.
Tarrier N, Kelly J, Maqsood S, et al: The cognitive behavioural prevention of suicide in psychosis: a clinical trial. Schizophr Res 2014; 156:204–210
4.
Lambert M, Naber D (eds): Current Schizophrenia. London, Springer, 2009
5.
Bornheimer LA, Nguyen D: Suicide among individuals with schizophrenia: a risk factor model. Soc Work Ment Health 2016; 14:112–132
6.
Ösby U, Correia N, Brandt L, et al: Mortality and causes of death in schizophrenia in Stockholm County, Sweden. Schizophr Res 2000; 45:21–28
7.
Heilä H, Haukka J, Suvisaari J, et al: Mortality among patients with schizophrenia and reduced psychiatric hospital care. Psychol Med 2005; 35:725–732
8.
Yates K, Lång U, Cederlöf M, et al: Association of psychotic experiences with subsequent risk of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and suicide deaths: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal population studies. JAMA Psychiatry 2019; 76:180–189
9.
Simms J, McCormack V, Anderson R, et al: Correlates of self-harm behaviour in acutely ill patients with schizophrenia. Psychol Psychother 2007; 80:39–49
10.
Pompili M, Amador XF, Girardi P, et al: Suicide risk in schizophrenia: learning from the past to change the future. Ann Gen Psychiatry 2007; 6:10
11.
De Hert M, McKenzie K, Peuskens J: Risk factors for suicide in young people suffering from schizophrenia: a long-term follow-up study. Schizophr Res 2001; 47:127–134
12.
Bornheimer LA, Jaccard J: Symptoms of depression, positive symptoms of psychosis, and suicidal ideation among adults diagnosed with schizophrenia within the clinical antipsychotic trials of intervention effectiveness. Arch Suicide Res 2017; 21:633–645
13.
Bornheimer LA: Moderating effects of positive symptoms of psychosis in suicidal ideation among adults diagnosed with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2016; 176:364–370
14.
Bornheimer LA: Suicidal ideation in first-episode psychosis (FEP): examination of symptoms of depression and psychosis among individuals in an early phase of treatment. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2019; 49:423–431
15.
DeVylder JE, Thompson E, Reeves G, et al: Psychotic experiences as indicators of suicidal ideation in a non-clinical college sample. Psychiatry Res 2015; 226:489–493
16.
Tiihonen J, Wahlbeck K, Lönnqvist J, et al: Effectiveness of antipsychotic treatments in a nationwide cohort of patients in community care after first hospitalisation due to schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder: observational follow-up study. BMJ 2006; 333:224
17.
Powell J, Geddes J, Deeks J, et al: Suicide in psychiatric hospital in-patients: risk factors and their predictive power. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176:266–272
18.
Meltzer HY: Treatment of suicidality in schizophrenia. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2001; 932:44–58
19.
Saha S, Chant D, McGrath J: Meta-analyses of the incidence and prevalence of schizophrenia: conceptual and methodological issues. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 2008; 17:55–61
20.
Hor K, Taylor M: Suicide and schizophrenia: a systematic review of rates and risk factors. J Psychopharmacol 2010; 24(suppl):81–90
21.
Tarrier N, Taylor K, Gooding P: Cognitive-behavioral interventions to reduce suicide behavior: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Behav Modif 2008; 32:77–108
22.
Donker T, Calear A, Busby Grant J, et al: Suicide prevention in schizophrenia spectrum disorders and psychosis: a systematic review. BMC Psychol 2013; 1:6
23.
Bourgeois M, Swendsen J, Young F, et al: Awareness of disorder and suicide risk in the treatment of schizophrenia: results of the international suicide prevention trial. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161:1494–1496
24.
Harris EC, Barraclough B: Suicide as an outcome for mental disorders: a meta-analysis. Br J Psychiatry 1997; 170:205–228
25.
Inskip HM, Harris EC, Barraclough B: Lifetime risk of suicide for affective disorder, alcoholism and schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 1998; 172:35–37
26.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343:d5928
27.
Halpern SH, Douglas MJ (eds): Evidence-Based Obstetric Anesthesia. New York, Wiley, 2005
28.
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC: The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 2009
29.
Agius M, Shah S, Ramkisson R, et al: Three-year outcomes of an early intervention for psychosis service as compared with treatment as usual for first psychotic episodes in a standard community mental health team: preliminary results. Psychiat Danub 2007; 19:10–19
30.
Albert N, Melau M, Jensen H, et al: Five years of specialised early intervention versus two years of specialised early intervention followed by three years of standard treatment for patients with a first episode psychosis: randomised, superiority, parallel group trial in Denmark (OPUS II). BMJ 2017; 356:i6681
31.
Bateman K, Hansen L, Turkington D, et al: Cognitive behavioral therapy reduces suicidal ideation in schizophrenia: results from a randomized controlled trial. Suicide Life Threat Behav 2007; 37:284–290
32.
Chan SK, So HC, Hui CL, et al: 10-year outcome study of an early intervention program for psychosis compared with standard care service. Psychol Med 2015; 45:1181–1193
33.
Chan SKW, Chan SWY, Pang HH, et al: Association of an early intervention service for psychosis with suicide rate among patients with first-episode schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. JAMA Psychiatry 2018; 75:458–464
34.
Chen EY, Tang JY, Hui CL, et al: Three-year outcome of phase-specific early intervention for first-episode psychosis: a cohort study in Hong Kong. Early Interv Psychiatry 2011; 5:315–323
35.
Cunningham Owens DG, Carroll A, Fattah S, et al: A randomized, controlled trial of a brief interventional package for schizophrenic out-patients. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2001; 103:362–369
36.
Färdig R, Lewander T, Melin L, et al: A randomized controlled trial of the illness management and recovery program for persons with schizophrenia. Psychiatr Serv 2011; 62:606–612
37.
Kasckow J, Zickmund S, Gurklis J, et al: Using telehealth to augment an intensive case monitoring program in veterans with schizophrenia and suicidal ideation: a pilot trial. Psychiatry Res 2016; 239:111–116
38.
Moritz S, Mahlke CI, Westermann S, et al: Embracing psychosis: a cognitive insight intervention improves personal narratives and meaning-making in patients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2018; 44:307–316
39.
Nordentoft M, Jeppesen P, Abel M, et al: OPUS study: suicidal behaviour, suicidal ideation and hopelessness among patients with first-episode psychosis: one-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry Suppl 2002; 43(suppl 43):s98–s106
40.
Peters E, Landau S, McCrone P, et al: A randomised controlled trial of cognitive behaviour therapy for psychosis in a routine clinical service. Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010; 122:302–318
41.
Power PJ, Bell RJ, Mills R, et al: Suicide prevention in first episode psychosis: the development of a randomised controlled trial of cognitive therapy for acutely suicidal patients with early psychosis. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2003; 37:414–420
42.
Tarrier N, Haddock G, Lewis S, et al: Suicide behaviour over 18 months in recent onset schizophrenic patients: the effects of CBT. Schizophr Res 2006; 83:15–27
43.
Turkington D, Kingdon D, Turner T: Effectiveness of a brief cognitive-behavioural therapy intervention in the treatment of schizophrenia. Br J Psychiatry 2002; 180:523–527
44.
Nanda P, Tandon N, Mathew IT, et al: Impulsivity across the psychosis spectrum: correlates of cortical volume, suicidal history, and social and global function. Schizophr Res 2016; 170:80–86
45.
Kim J, Lee KS, Kim DJ, et al: Characteristic risk factors associated with planned versus impulsive suicide attempters. Clin Psychopharmacol Neurosci 2015; 13:308–315
46.
Delaney C, McGrane J, Cummings E, et al: Preserved cognitive function is associated with suicidal ideation and single suicide attempts in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2012; 140:232–236
47.
Villa J, Choi J, Kangas JL, et al: Associations of suicidality with cognitive ability and cognitive insight in outpatients with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2018; 192:340–344
48.
Stip E, Caron J, Tousignant M, et al: Suicidal ideation and schizophrenia: contribution of appraisal, stigmatization, and cognition. Can J Psychiatry 2017; 62:726–734
49.
Barrett EA, Sundet K, Simonsen C, et al: Neurocognitive functioning and suicidality in schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Compr Psychiatry 2011; 52:156–163
50.
Roiz-Santiáñez R, Ortiz-García de la Foz V, Ayesa-Arriola R, et al: No progression of the alterations in the cortical thickness of individuals with schizophrenia-spectrum disorder: a three-year longitudinal magnetic resonance imaging study of first-episode patients. Psychol Med 2015; 45:2861–2871
51.
Melle I, Johannesen JO, Friis S, et al: Early detection of the first episode of schizophrenia and suicidal behavior. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163:800–804
52.
Lopez-Morinigo JD, Fernandes AC, Chang CK, et al: Suicide completion in secondary mental healthcare: a comparison study between schizophrenia spectrum disorders and all other diagnoses. BMC Psychiatry 2014; 14:213
53.
David D, Cristea I, Hofmann SG: Why cognitive behavioral therapy is the current gold standard of psychotherapy. Front Psychiatry 2018; 9:4
54.
Hofmann SG, Asnaani A, Vonk IJ, et al: The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Cognit Ther Res 2012; 36:427–440
55.
Zhang A, Borhneimer LA, Weaver A, et al: Cognitive behavioral therapy for primary care depression and anxiety: a secondary meta-analytic review using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. J Behav Med 2019; 42:1117–1141
56.
Baker DP, Day R, Salas E: Teamwork as an essential component of high-reliability organizations. Health Serv Res 2006; 41:1576–1598
57.
Davis MM, Gunn R, Gowen LK, et al: A qualitative study of patient experiences of care in integrated behavioral health and primary care settings: more similar than different. Transl Behav Med 2018; 8:649–659
58.
Healy J, McKee M (eds): Hospitals in a Changing Europe. Philadelphia, Open University Press, 2002
59.
Overholser JC, Braden A, Dieter L: Understanding suicide risk: identification of high-risk groups during high-risk times. J Clin Psychol 2012; 68:349–361
60.
Kurtz MM, Mueser KT: A meta-analysis of controlled research on social skills training for schizophrenia. J Consult Clin Psychol 2008; 76:491–504
61.
Twamley EW, Vella L, Burton CZ, et al: The efficacy of supported employment for middle-aged and older people with schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 2012; 135:100–104
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
History
Received: 1 October 2019
Revision received: 18 November 2019
Revision received: 6 February 2020
Accepted: 6 March 2020
Published online: 28 April 2020
Published in print: August 01, 2020
Keywords
Authors
Competing Interests
The authors report no financial relationships with commercial interests.
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu.
View Options
View options
PDF/EPUB
View PDF/EPUBLogin options
Already a subscriber? Access your subscription through your login credentials or your institution for full access to this article.
Personal login Institutional Login Open Athens loginNot a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5-TR® library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).