The case against no‐suicide contracts: The commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative
Abstract
This article reviews the literature on the use of "no-suicide contracts" in clinical practice, including conceptual discussions, patient and clinician surveys, and a few empirical studies on clinical utility. Our primary conclusion is that no-suicide contracts suffer from a broad range of conceptual, practical, and empirical problems. Most significantly, they have no empirical support for their effectiveness in the clinical environment. The authors provide and illustrate the commitment to treatment statement as a practice alternative to the no-suicide contract.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The Joint Commission recommended development of a collaborative safety plan as an alternative to no-suicide contracts.
“The Joint Commission 22 recommended development of a collaborative safety plan as an alternative to no-suicide contracts.23,24”
From Comparison of the Safety Planning Intervention With Follow-up vs Usual Care of Suicidal Patients Treated in the Emergency Department (2018) · cites this paper as [23]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 22 · Cited by 205
- Authors
- Rudd, M. D., Mandrusiak, M., & Joiner Jr., T. E.
- Affiliations
- Baylor University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rudd, M. David
- ORCID
- Rudd, M. David
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-12-09
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 243-251
- ISSN
- 0021-9762 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-4679
- OpenAlex
- W2118762621
- Cited by
- 205
- References
- 22
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 4.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Keywords
- suicide prevention, suicide attempt prevention, treatment commitment, clinical utility
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Suicide, United States, Program Evaluation, Contracts
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
