Cited by 16Suicide and Self-Harm StudiesPsychiatric care and mental health servicesOpioid Use Disorder Treatment

Suicide risk assessments: why are we still relying on these a decade after the evidence showed they perform poorly?

Fortune, Sarah, Hetrick, Sarah·2022·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry

Abstract

Suicide deaths have a profound impact on whānau and community and are a tragic loss. However, from a statistical point of view, suicide is a relatively rare event. Predicting rare events is difficult, and the implications for suicide prevention were highlighted in an important editorial in this journal more than a decade ago, yet little seems to have changed. Risk assessment that focuses on accurate prediction of suicide in real-world contexts is given a great deal of attention in mental health services, despite the fact that current scientific knowledge and best practice guidelines in this area highlight that it is unlikely to be a good basis on which to provide access to treatment. It is our view that we have a good enough understanding of the common conditions people who struggle with suicidal distress experience and energy is better directed at acting to reduce exposure to these conditions and providing treatment for those who seek it. Blueprints for successful suicide prevention exist. If we lessen the focus on prediction, we will have greater resources to focus on treatment and prevention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/00048674221107316

Cites

60 of 60 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.

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 evidence around the prediction of re-engagement in self-harm is typically based on the types of measures used in screening interventions.

    “based on the evidence around the prediction of re-engagement in self-harm (Fortune 2022), typically based on the types of measures used in screening interventions”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fortune, S., & Hetrick, S.
Affiliations
University of Auckland (NZ)
Corresponding author
Fortune, Sarah
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2022-07-02
Volume
56
Issue
12
Pages
1529-1534
ISSN
  • 0004-8674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1614
OpenAlex
W4283774204
Cited by
16
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchSpace (University of Auckland) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
Keywords
suicide risk assessment, suicide risk prediction, suicide prevention, rare event prediction, mental health services, access to treatment
MeSH terms
Suicide Prevention, Humans, Mental Health Services, Risk Assessment

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