Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2025

Implementation of a Real-Time Psychosis Risk Detection and Alerting System Based on Electronic Health Records using CogStack
Published on: May 15, 2020
Suicide and Self-Harm Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Prospective Research
Objective:
Suicide and self-harm are widespread yet underreported. Risk assessment is key to effective self-harm and suicide prevention and management. There is contradicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of risk assessment tools in predicting self-harm and suicide risk. This systematic review examines the effect of risk assessment strategies on predicting suicide and self-harm outcomes among adult healthcare service users.
Method:
Electronic and gray literature databases were searched for prospective research. Studies were screened and selected by independent reviewers. Quality and level of evidence assessments were conducted. Due to study heterogeneity, we present a narrative synthesis under three categories: (1) suicide- and self-harm-related outcomes; (2) clinician assessment of suicide and self-harm risk; and (3) healthcare utilization due to self-harm or suicide.
Results:
Twenty-one studies were included in this review. The SAD PERSONS Scale was the most used tool. It outperformed the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation in predicting hospital admissions and stay following suicide and self-harm, yet it failed to predict repeat suicide and self-harm and was not recommended for routine use. There were mixed findings relating to clinician risk assessment, with some studies recommending clinician assessment over structured tools, whilst others found that clinician assessment failed to predict future attempts and deaths.
Conclusions:
There is insufficient evidence to support the use of any one tool, inclusive of clinician assessment of risk, for self-harm and suicidality. The discourse around risk assessment needs to move toward a broader discussion on the safety of patients who are at risk for self-harm and/or suicide.HIGHLIGHTSThere is insufficient evidence to support using standalone risk assessment tools.There are mixed findings relating to clinician assessment of risk.Structured professional judgment is widely accepted for risk assessment.
More Related Videos
05:52Handwriting Analysis Indicates Spontaneous Dyskinesias in Neuroleptic Naïve Adolescents at High Risk for Psychosis
Published on: November 21, 2013
06:55Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting Propensity Score using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Related Concept Videos
Self-Help Support Groups
Accessibility and Cost-Effectiveness
One of the primary strengths of self-help...
Psychosurgery
Historical Development of Psychosurgery
In the 1930s, Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz introduced a surgical procedure designed...
Self-Presentation: Self-Monitoring and Self-Handicapping
Psychological and Sociocultural Causes of Schizophrenia
Self-Discrepancy Theory
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...