Cited by 29Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyDigital Mental Health Interventions

Developing adaptive treatment strategies to address suicidal risk in college students: A pilot sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART)

Open access
Pistorello, Jacqueline, Jobes, David A., Compton, Scott N., Locey, Nadia Samad, Walloch, Joseph C., Gallop, Robert, Au, Josephine S., Noose, Samantha K. +7 more·2018·Archives of Suicide Research

Abstract

This pilot study investigated the potential to utilize adaptive treatment strategies for treating moderate to severe suicidal risk among college students. This article will describe the unique study design and report on feasibility and acceptability findings. A 2-stage Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART) was conducted: In Stage 1, 62 suicidal college students were randomized to either a suicide-focused or a treatment-as-usual condition (4-8 weeks). Those deemed insufficient responders were re-randomized to one of two Stage 2 interventions-both suicide-focused but one comprehensive and multimodal and the other flexible and theoretically agnostic (4-16 additional weeks). Recruitment rates were high, treatment dropout levels were lower than expected for the setting, study dropouts were rare, and counselors were able to deliver suicide-focused approaches with fidelity. Treatment satisfaction was high among clients and moderately high among counselors. Findings from this pilot show that a SMART is highly feasible and acceptable to suicidal college students, counselors, and campuses.

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 · 10.1080/13811118.2017.1392915

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • In the Pistorello et al. Phase 1 results, CAMS was significantly more effective than TAU in terms of the primary outcome of suicidal ideation and the secondary outcome of depression.

    “Phase 1 results only were thus published showing that CAMS was significantly more effective than TAU in terms of the primary outcome of suicidal ideation and the secondary outcome of depression.”

    From The use of CAMS and DBT to effectively treat patients who are suicidal (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Results section (Acceptability: Attendance, Treatment Attrition, and Sufficient Response; page unavailable) reports that Stage 1 treatment response did not differ significantly between CAMS and TAU (p=.44). The Discussion (Summary of Findings; page unavailable) says the pilot was not designed to examine relative efficacy. Our copy therefore does not report the claimed significant advantage on suicidal ideation and depression. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In an alternative moderator finding from the Pistorello et al. trial, in clients who were newer to suicidal ideation with no attempt history or borderline features, CAMS significantly decreased a secondary outcome measure of hopelessness compared to TAU.

    “An alternative moderator finding was that, in clients who were “newer” to suicidal ideation with no attempt history or borderline features, CAMS significantly decreased a secondary outcome measure of hopelessness when compared to TAU.”

    From The use of CAMS and DBT to effectively treat patients who are suicidal (2024) · cites this paper as [32]

    The Method describes randomization to CAMS or TAU, and the Results report baseline hopelessness, attempt history, and borderline features. Neither those passages nor the Discussion’s summary of findings reports a moderator analysis or a significant reduction in hopelessness for the specified subgroup. Searches for the subgroup, moderator finding, and hopelessness outcome found no such result in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

1 of the 54 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Corona CD, (2017). A psychometric evaluation of the CAMS rating scale. The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
  2. Dixon-Gordon KL, Chapman AL, & Turner BJ (2015). A preliminary investigation of the specificity of effects of dialectical behavior therapy emotion regulation skills training. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology, 6(4), 369– 388.
  3. Guy W (1976). Clinical global impression scale. The ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology-Revised Volume DHEW Publ No ADM, 76(338), 218– 222.
  4. Lamis DA & Lester D (Eds.) (2011). Understanding and preventing college student suicide Springfield, IL: Charles.C. Thomas.
  5. Linehan MM (1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder New York: Guilford Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pistorello, J., Jobes, D. A., Compton, S. N., Locey, N. S., Walloch, J. C., Gallop, R., Au, J. S., Noose, S. K., Young, M., Johnson, J., Dickens, Y., Chatham, P., Jeffcoat, T., Dalto, G., & Goswami, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • Catholic University of America (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • West Chester University (US)
  • Saint Louis University (US)
Corresponding author
Pistorello, Jacqueline
Venue
Archives of Suicide Research
Published
2018-02-12
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
644-664
ISSN
  • 1381-1118 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-6136
OpenAlex
W2773460290
Cited by
29
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Suicide Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (R34MH104714)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
Keywords
suicide risk, university students, adaptive therapy, sequential multiple assignment randomized trial, treatment acceptability, treatment feasibility, treatment discontinuation, treatment satisfaction, university mental health services
MeSH terms
Help-Seeking Behavior, Suicide Prevention, Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Female, Humans, Male, Pilot Projects, Psychological Techniques, Risk Factors, Students, Suicide, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Self-Injurious Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, 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