Advocacy Opportunities for Pediatricians and Emergency Physicians to Prevent Youth Suicide

Suicide Screening Tools for Pediatric Emergency Department Patients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicidality and suicidal behavior among youth continues to increase significantly each year. Many of those who die by suicide interact with health services in the year before death. This systematic review sought to identify and describe empirically tested screening tools for suicidality in youth presenting to Emergency Departments (ED).

OBJECTIVE

(1) To identify and compare existing tools used to screen for suicidality in children and adolescents who present to the ED and (2) to ascertain the prevalence of suicidality in pediatric populations found with these tools.

METHODS

We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane databases for primary research studies that identified and evaluated screening tools for suicide risk in pediatric ED patients. A total of 7,597 publications published before August 25, 2021 met search criteria and were screened by two independent reviewers based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria, with any conflicts resolved via consensus meetings or an independent reviewer. A total of 110 papers were selected for full text review, of which 67 were excluded upon further inspection. Covidence was used to extract and synthesize results.

RESULTS

43 articles were eligible for inclusion. Most studies (n = 33) took place in general pediatric EDs; the quality was generally high. Patients ranged from 4-24 years old, with most screening tested in patients 12 years and older. The most researched tools were the Ask-Suicide Screening Questions (ASQ) (n = 15), Columbia-Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) (n = 12), Suicidal Ideation Questionnaire (SIQ) (n = 11), and the Risk of Suicide Questionnaire (RSQ) (n = 7). Where screening was applied to all patients, about one-fifth of pediatric ED patients screened positive; where suicide screening was applied to psychiatric patients only, over half screened positive. Positive screens were more likely to be female and older than negative screens and they were more likely to be assessed and admitted.

CONCLUSION

Several validated screening tools exist for the purpose of screening pediatric populations in EDs for suicidality. Such tools may help to support early detection and appropriate intervention for youth at risk of suicide.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=276328, identifier: 276328.

Emergency Department Visits for Suicidal Ideation and Self-Harm in Rural and Urban Youths

OBJECTIVES

To compare emergency department (ED) visit rates for suicidal ideation and/or self-harm among youth by urban-rural location of residence.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective analysis of ED visits for suicidal ideation and/or self-harm by youths aged 5-19 years (n = 297 640) in the 2016 Nationwide Emergency Department Sample, a representative sample of all US ED visits. We used weighted Poisson generalized linear models to compare population-based visit rates by urban-rural location of patient residence, adjusted for age, sex, and US Census region. For self-harm visits, we compared injury mechanisms by urban-rural location.

RESULTS

Among patients with ED visits for suicidal ideation and/or self-harm, the median age was 16 years, 65.9% were female, 15.9% had a rural location of patient residence, and 0.1% resulted in mortality. The adjusted ED visit rate for suicidal ideation/or and self-harm did not differ significantly by urban-rural location. For the subset of visits for self-harm, the adjusted visit rate was significantly higher in small metropolitan (adjusted incidence rate ratio [aIRR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.90), micropolitan (aIRR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10-1.93), and noncore areas (aIRR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.03-1.87) compared with large metropolitan areas. When stratified by injury mechanism, ED visit rates for self-inflicted firearm injuries were higher among youths living in rural areas compared with those in urban areas (aIRR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.32-6.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with youths living in urban areas, youths living in rural areas had higher ED visit rates for self-harm, including self-inflicted firearm injuries. Preventive approaches for self-harm based in community and ED settings might help address these differences.