Cited by 207Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseMental Health via Writing

Predicting Future Suicide Attempts Among Adolescent and Emerging Adult Psychiatric Emergency Patients

Open access
Horwitz, Adam G., Czyz, Ewa K., King, Cheryl A.·2015·Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to longitudinally examine specific characteristics of suicidal ideation in combination with histories of suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) to best evaluate risk for a future attempt among high-risk adolescents and emerging adults. Participants in this retrospective medical record review study were 473 (53% female; 69% Caucasian) consecutive patients, ages 15 to 24 years (M=19.4 years) who presented for psychiatric emergency services during a 9-month period. These patients' medical records, including a clinician-administered Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale, were coded at the index visit and at future visits occurring within the next 18 months. Logistic regression models were used to predict suicide attempts during this period. Socioeconomic status, suicidal ideation severity (i.e., intent, method), suicidal ideation intensity (i.e., frequency, controllability), a lifetime history of suicide attempt, and a lifetime history of NSSI were significant independent predictors of a future suicide attempt. Suicidal ideation added incremental validity to the prediction of future suicide attempts above and beyond the influence of a past suicide attempt, whereas a lifetime history of NSSI did not. Sex moderated the relationship between the duration of suicidal thoughts and future attempts (predictive for male patients but not female). Results suggest value in incorporating both past behaviors and current thoughts into suicide risk formulation. Furthermore, suicidal ideation duration warrants additional examination as a potential critical factor for screening assessments evaluating suicide risk among high-risk samples, particularly for male patients.

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 · 10.1080/15374416.2014.910789

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • The C-SSRS predicted suicide attempts with an OR of 4.8 (95% CI 2.23-10.32, p<.001) in adolescents and young adults following an emergency psychiatric evaluation.

    “The C-SSRS predicted suicide attempts with an OR of 4.8 (95% CI 2.23–10.32, p<.001) in adolescents and young adults following an emergency psychiatric evaluation.(41)”

    From Improving Suicide Prevention Through Evidence-Based Strategies: A Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as [41]

    The Discussion says several C-SSRS items predicted future attempts in adolescents and emerging adults seeking psychiatric emergency services. But Table 3, Model 1 (Future Attempter Index Visit Clinical Characteristics; page unavailable) assigns OR 4.80 (95% CI 2.23–10.32, p<.001) specifically to a lifetime history of suicide attempt, not to the C-SSRS overall. (LLM, conf=0.91)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Horwitz, A. G., Czyz, E. K., & King, C. A.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
King, Cheryl A.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology
Published
2014-05-28
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
751-761
ISSN
  • 1537-4416 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-4424
OpenAlex
W2047011601
Cited by
207
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
15.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
This study was supported by a NIMH K24 award to Dr. Cheryl King. We gratefully acknowledge the physicians, nurses, social workers, and administrative staff in Psychiatric Emergency Services at the University of Michigan. We especially thank Dr. Rachel Glick, M.D., and John Kettley, ACSW, for their support and commitment to the integration of science and practice. We also thank Dr. Sandra Graham-Bermann for reviewing a previous draft of this manuscript.
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Homicide, Infanticide, and Child Abuse
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
Keywords
suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, non-suicidal self-injury, suicide risk prediction, adolescents, emerging adults, psychiatric emergency care, sex differences, Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale, suicide risk screening
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Emergency Services, Psychiatric, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Medical Records, Predictive Value of Tests, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Retrospective Studies, Suicide, Suicide, Attempted, Reproducibility of Results, Logistic Models, Self-Injurious Behavior, Young Adult, 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