CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 328Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesMental Health via WritingHomicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse

Improving the Short-Term Prediction of Suicidal Behavior

Open access
Glenn, Catherine R., Nock, Matthew K.·2014·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.004PMC PMC5258198
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Aspirational Goal 3 of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention's Research Prioritization Task Force is to predict who is at risk for attempting suicide in the near future. Despite decades of research devoted to the study of risk and protective factors for suicide and suicidal behavior, surprisingly little is known about the short-term prediction of these behaviors. In this paper, we propose several questions that, if answered, could improve the identification of short-term, or imminent, risk for suicidal behavior. First, what factors predict the transition from suicidal thoughts to attempts? Second, what factors are particularly strong predictors of making this transition over the next hours, days, or weeks? Third, what are the most important objective markers of short-term risk for suicidal behavior? And fourth, what method of combining information about risk and protective factors yields the best prediction? We propose that the next generation of research on the assessment and prediction of suicidal behavior should shift, from cross-sectional studies of bivariate risk and protective factors, to prospective studies aimed at identifying multivariate, short-term prediction indices, examining methods of synthesizing this information, and testing the ability to predict and prevent suicidal events.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.004

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Prediction of suicide and suicidal behaviour can only improve substantially over chance by the examination of multiple risk factors simultaneously, with a specific focus on imminent suicide risk.

    “Consequently, there is a nearly universal acknowledgement that prediction of suicide and suicidal behaviour can only improve substantially over chance by the examination of multiple risk factors simultaneously, with a specific focus on imminent suicide risk 203,205 .”

    From Suicide and suicide risk (2019) · cites this paper as [205]

    In “Breakthroughs Needed,” section 4 (page unavailable), the paper argues for combining multiple risk factors and reports promising results from indices based on longer-term factors. The Introduction and Conclusions (pages unavailable) emphasize imminent risk, but the paper does not establish that multivariate assessment is the only way to improve prediction substantially over chance, particularly for imminent risk. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • State-sensitive phenomena are more promising for short-term risk and likely poor indicators of long-term risk.

    “Contrastingly, state-sensitive phenomena are more promising candidates for short-term risk (Glenn & Nock, 2014) and likely poor indicators of long-term risk.”

    From Sleep and suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies (2020) · cites this paper as Glenn & Nock, 2014

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Glenn, C. R., & Nock, M. K.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Glenn, Catherine R.
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-09
Volume
47
Issue
3
Pages
S176-S180
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2014.06.004
PMC
PMC5258198
OpenAlex
W2043203750
Cited by
328
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 1
FWCI
23.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH097354)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
Keywords
suicidal behavior, short-term forecasting, suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, risk and protective factors, suicide prevention, prospective study
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Forecasting, Humans, Research, Research Design, Risk Factors, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Time Factors, Suicidal Ideation

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