CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 104Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesHomicide, Infanticide, and Child AbuseMental Health Treatment and Access

Prevention and Treatment of Suicidal Behaviour: From science to practice

·2005·Oxford University Press eBooks
DOI 10.1093/med/9780198529767.001.0001
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In this resource, leading figures from psychiatry, psychology, epidemiology, public health, and social medicine bring together the research evidence concerning the key elements in suicide prevention and treatment of suicidal behaviour and translate it into implications for practical action. This includes social and public health policy as well as clinical practice. It draws together the evidence relevant to treatment and prevention, and uses this in order to highlight the most effective approaches. The range of initiatives covered is wide, reflecting the complex nature of suicide and hence the need for a range of approaches.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/med/9780198529767.001.0001

Cites

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.

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 contradiction between personal accounts and research studies is perpetuated by (self-)selection bias between clinical groups and study groups, as well as methodological problems of many studies, including small sample sizes, lack of control groups, and lack of follow-up over longer periods.

    “The existing contradiction is perpetuated by the (self-)selection bias between the clinical groups and groups included in the studies (e.g., people seeking professional help might experience more so-called prolonged or complicated grief than individuals participating in bereavement surveys) as well as methodological problems of many studies, including small sample sizes, lack of control groups and”

    From Essential Questions on Suicide Bereavement and Postvention (2011) · cites this paper as [10]

  • There is a gap between personal accounts of individual survivors and narratives of clinicians, and outcomes of research studies.

    “There seems to be a gap between personal accounts of individual survivors, for example first person accounts written by survivors themselves, e.g., [9] and narratives of clinicians working with the bereaved, and outcomes of research studies [10].”

    From Essential Questions on Suicide Bereavement and Postvention (2011) · cites this paper as [10]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Venue
Oxford University Press eBooks
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Published
2005-09
DOI
10.1093/med/9780198529767.001.0001
OpenAlex
W609446739
Cited by
104
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
7.73
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
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 Treatment and Access
Keywords
suicide prevention, suicidal behavior, suicide treatment, public health policy, social policy, clinical practice, evidence-based interventions

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