↓ Skip to main content

Reformulating Suicide Risk Formulation: From Prediction to Prevention

Overview of attention for article published in Academic Psychiatry, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#23 of 1,525)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
67 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
106 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
208 Mendeley
Title
Reformulating Suicide Risk Formulation: From Prediction to Prevention
Published in
Academic Psychiatry, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40596-015-0434-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony R. Pisani, Daniel C. Murrie, Morton M. Silverman

Abstract

Psychiatrists-in-training typically learn that assessments of suicide risk should culminate in a probability judgment expressed as "low," "moderate," or "high." This way of formulating risk has predominated in psychiatric education and practice, despite little evidence for its validity, reliability, or utility. We present a model for teaching and communicating suicide risk assessments without categorical predictions. Instead, we propose risk formulations which synthesize data into four distinct judgments to directly inform intervention plans: (1) risk status (the patient's risk relative to a specified subpopulation), (2) risk state (the patient's risk compared to baseline or other specified time points), (3) available resources from which the patient can draw in crisis, and (4) foreseeable changes that may exacerbate risk. An example case illustrates the conceptual shift from a predictive to a preventive formulation, and we outline steps taken to implement the model in an academic psychiatry setting. Our goal is to inform educational leaders, as well as individual educators, who can together cast a prevention-oriented vision in their academic programs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 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 208 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Belgium 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 202 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 27 13%
Researcher 25 12%
Other 20 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 7%
Other 51 25%
Unknown 50 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 63 30%
Medicine and Dentistry 29 14%
Social Sciences 20 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 3%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 59 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. 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 29 September 2023.
All research outputs
#828,074
of 25,793,330 outputs
Outputs from Academic Psychiatry
#23
of 1,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,797
of 398,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Academic Psychiatry
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,793,330 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,525 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 98% 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 398,431 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.