Cited by 52Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health services

Caring letters for suicide prevention: implementation of a multi-site randomized clinical trial in the U.S. military and Veteran Affairs healthcare systems

Luxton, David D., Thomas, Elissa K., Chipps, Joan, Relova, Rona M., Brown, Daphne, McLay, Robert, Lee, Tina T., Nakama, Helenna +1 more·2014·Contemporary Clinical Trials

Abstract

Caring letters is a suicide prevention intervention that entails the sending of brief messages that espouse caring concern to patients following discharge from treatment. First tested more than four decades ago, this intervention is one of the only interventions shown in a randomized controlled trial to reduce suicide mortality rates. Due to elevated suicide risk among patients following psychiatric hospitalization and the steady increase in suicide rates among the U.S. military personnel, it is imperative to test interventions that may help prevent suicide among high-risk military personnel and veterans. This paper describes the design, methods, study protocol, and regulatory implementation processes for a multi-site randomized controlled trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a caring emails intervention for suicide prevention in the military and VA healthcare systems. The primary outcome is suicide mortality rates to be determined 24 months post-discharge from index hospital stay. Healthcare re-utilization rates will also be evaluated and comprehensive data will be collected regarding suicide risk factors. Recommendations for navigating the military and VA research regulatory processes and implementing a multi-site clinical trial at military and VA hospitals are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cct.2014.01.007

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Luxton, D. D., Thomas, E. K., Chipps, J., Relova, R. M., Brown, D., McLay, R., Lee, T. T., Nakama, H., & Smolenski, D. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • VA Western New York Healthcare System (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (DE)
  • Naval Medical Center San Diego (US)
  • Tripler Army Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Luxton, David D.
Venue
Contemporary Clinical Trials
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-03
Volume
37
Issue
2
Pages
252-260
ISSN
1551-7144 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979105103
Cited by
52
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Contemporary Clinical Trials (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Department of the Army (W81XWH-11-2-0123)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
suicide prevention, suicide mortality, military personnel, veterans, psychiatric hospitalization, post-discharge follow-up, email intervention, suicide risk factors, Department of Veterans Affairs
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Empathy, Health Status, Humans, Mental Health, Military Personnel, Patient Discharge, Psychiatric Department, Hospital, Research Design, Risk Factors, Socioeconomic Factors, Suicide, Attempted, United States, Veterans, Electronic Mail

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