Cited by 46Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychiatric care and mental health services

A randomized controlled trial of the collaborative assessment and management of suicidality (CAMS) versus treatment as usual (TAU) for suicidal college students

Open access
Pistorello, Jacqueline, Jobes, David A., Gallop, Robert, Compton, Scott N., Locey, Nadia Samad, Au, Josephine S., Noose, Samantha K., Walloch, Joseph C. +5 more·2021·Archives of Suicide Research

Abstract

This randomized controlled trial compared the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) and Treatment as Usual (TAU) for suicidal college students within a feasibility trial. Sixty-two suicidal college students were randomized to CAMS (n = 33) or TAU (n = 29). We hypothesized that those receiving CAMS would show more improvement in suicide-related measures, and effects would be moderated by borderline personality disorder (BPD), prior suicide attempts, and age. Both treatment groups showed improvements in all outcome variables; CAMS had a significantly higher impact on depression and suicidal ideation when measured weekly during care and was more likely than TAU to decrease hopelessness among students with fewer BPD features, no suicide attempt history, and older age. Conversely, TAU did better for students with BPD features and history of multiple suicide attempts.

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 · 10.1080/13811118.2020.1749742

Cites

65 of 65 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 SMART feasibility RCT, clients with no multiple attempt history or borderline features had significant reductions in hopelessness when receiving CAMS compared to TAU care.

    “Moderator analyses from stage 1 were noteworthy since clients with no multiple attempt history or borderline features had significant reductions in a secondary variable of hopelessness when receiving CAMS when compared to TAU care.”

    From The use of CAMS and DBT to effectively treat patients who are suicidal (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Results > Moderation Effects passage reports significantly greater reductions in hopelessness with CAMS than TAU for students scoring at least one standard deviation below the mean on borderline features. For prior suicide attempts, it reports only a marginally significant moderation effect and describes greater reductions among those with no prior attempts—not a significant finding for everyone without a history of multiple attempts. The claim also turns low borderline-feature scores into an absence of borderline features. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In the SMART feasibility RCT, 62 counseling center students with serious suicidal ideation were randomly assigned to stage 1 care receiving either CAMS or TAU, and most responded positively to both arms, with relatively few needing randomization to stage 2.

    “Within the feasibility RCT, 62 counseling center students with serious suicidal ideation were randomly assigned to stage 1 care receiving either CAMS or TAU (23). Most of these students responded positively to both arms of care, and relatively few needed to be randomized to stage 2 (and this sample was too small to analyze).”

    From The use of CAMS and DBT to effectively treat patients who are suicidal (2024) · cites this paper as [23]

    Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In stage 1 of the SMART feasibility RCT, CAMS was significantly better than TAU for reducing the primary outcome variable of suicidal ideation and a secondary outcome variable of depression.

    “However, for stage 1 care, it was observed that CAMS was significantly better than TAU for reducing the primary outcome variable of suicidal ideation and a secondary outcome variable of depression.”
  • In the SMART feasibility RCT, clients with multiple suicide attempts and borderline features responded better to TAU care.

    “In other words, those clients with multiple suicide attempts and borderline features actually responded better to TAU care.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Guy W (1976). Clinical global impression scale. The ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology - Revised Volume DHEW Publ No ADM. 76(338), 218– 222.
  2. Lamis DA, & Lester D (Eds.). (2011). Understanding and preventing college student suicide. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
  3. Linehan MM (1993). Cognitive behavioral therapy of borderline personality disorder. New York: Guilford Press.
  4. Raudenbush SW & Bryk AS (2001). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods (advanced quantitative techniques in the social sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
  5. Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) Model: A Secondary Analysis of Moderation and influencing factors. Archives of Suicide Research. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2019.1650143 31442105 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pistorello, J., Jobes, D. A., Gallop, R., Compton, S. N., Locey, N. S., Au, J. S., Noose, S. K., Walloch, J. C., Johnson, J., Young, M., Dickens, Y., Chatham, P., & Jeffcoat, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Nevada, Reno (US)
  • Catholic University of America (US)
  • West Chester University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • McLean Hospital (US)
  • University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Pistorello, Jacqueline
Venue
Archives of Suicide Research
Published
2020-04-10
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
765-789
ISSN
  • 1381-1118 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-6136
OpenAlex
W3015201481
Cited by
46
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Suicide Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health
  • National Institutes of 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 › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality, CAMS, suicidal ideation, university students, suicide prevention, borderline personality disorder, suicide attempts, depression, hopelessness, usual care, feasibility
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Aged, Humans, Psychotherapy, Students, Suicide, Attempted, 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