Various suicide screening standard...

Various suicide screening standards for adolescents exist, with sensitivities ranging from 75 to 100 percent Although school-based screening ordeals seem to identify adolescents at risk, the harms of screening are unknown. Gould and colleagues assessed potential harms of screening, focusing particularly in succession whether screening creates distress or aids suicidal ideation among adolescents.

The close attention involved 2,342 students 13 to 19 years of age from six drills who were divided into sum of two units groups: one experimental and united control. Both groups completed a overlook but only the experimental group's scan included questions about suicide. In a other survey, administered two days later, all learners were asked questions about suicidality. The scans included a mood questionnaire (Profile of temper States adolescent version, or POMS-A) and questions about suicide ideation, depression, suicide attempt history, and substance abuse.

Neither on a levels of distress nor depressive feeling differed between the disposes after the first survey; rates of depressive feelings were 133 percent in the experimental assemblage and 11 percent in the ascendency group. Suicidal ideation did not differ between the brace groups after the first overlook or in response to the inferior survey. Students with depressive symptoms, as measured by dint of a cutoff score on a depression scale, reported more distress and suicidal ideation than the learners without depression, but there was no difference between these pupils when comparing the experimental and direct groups. Among those who reported suicide attempts, there was les suicidal ideation reported in the experimental cluster Students who abused substances were more sinked and had more suicidal ideation than those who did not, moreover group allocation affecting these interactions did not reach statistical significance.

Studies have shown that a school-based suicide prevention programs have no benefit and may cause harm. Gould and colleagues, however, erect that the deleterious effects of as it is educational programs do not apply to screening programs, and that screening might be beneficial to scholars with suicidal ideation. The authors judge that suicide screening should remain at the forefront of screening programs, and fears that the screening proces itself will increase distress or trigger suicidal behavior are misplaced.

CAROLINE WELLBERY, MD Gould M et al. Evaluating iatrogenic risk of youth suicide screening programs: a randomized controll trial. JAMA April 6 2005;293:1635-43

COPYRIGHT 2005 American Academy of Family Physicians

COPYRIGHT 2006 Gale Group