↓ Skip to main content

Suicide Risk Screening in Healthcare Settings: Identifying Males and Females at Risk

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 444)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
Title
Suicide Risk Screening in Healthcare Settings: Identifying Males and Females at Risk
Published in
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, March 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10880-017-9486-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Cheryl A. King, Adam Horwitz, Ewa Czyz, Rebecca Lindsay

Abstract

Suicide is the tenth leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for more than 42,000 deaths in 2014. Although this tragedy cuts across groups defined by age, gender, race/ethnicity, and geographic location, it is striking that nearly four times as many males as females die by suicide in the U.S. We describe the current regulations and recommendations for suicide risk screening in healthcare systems and also describe the aspirational goal of "Zero Suicide," put forth by the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention. We then provide information about suicide risk screening tools and steps to take when a patient screens positive for suicide risk. Given the substantially higher suicide rate among males than females, we argue that it is important to consider how we could optimize suicide risk screening strategies to identify males at risk and females at risk. Further research is needed to accomplish this goal. It is recommended that we consider multi-factorial suicide risk screens that incorporate risk factors known to be particularly important for males as well as computerized, adaptive screens that are tailored for the specific risk considerations of the individual patient, male or female. These strategies are not mutually exclusive. Finally, universal suicide risk screening in healthcare settings, especially primary care, specialty medical care, and emergency department settings, is recommended.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 16%
Student > Bachelor 20 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 11%
Researcher 10 7%
Other 6 4%
Other 23 17%
Unknown 39 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 22 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 11%
Social Sciences 12 9%
Computer Science 8 6%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 43 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 October 2020.
All research outputs
#2,974,957
of 23,020,670 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#43
of 444 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,316
of 311,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,020,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 444 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them