Panel Discussions
Suicide and Self-Injury
Shireen L. Rizvi, ABPP, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Rutgers University
Piscataway, New Jersey
Evan M. Kleiman, PhD
Assistant Professor
Rutgers, The State university of new jersey
Piscataway, New Jersey
David A. Jobes, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology, Director of the Suicide Prevention Laboratory
The Catholic University of America
Bethesda, Maryland
Regina Miranda, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
Hunter College and The Graduate Center, City University of New York
New York, New York
Lauren Weinstock, Ph.D.
Professor
Alpert Medical School of Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island
Spurred in part by the increasing suicide rate over the past few decades and NIH’s prioritization of suicide as a critical research area, the number of prevention and intervention trials for suicidal populations has proliferated in recent years. However, despite this increase in intervention work, the field has not come to consensus regarding appropriate outcomes for suicide interventions. Examples of primary outcomes include frequency of suicidal behavior (i.e., suicide attempts, self-injury), crisis service or hospital utilization, and presence/frequency/severity of suicide ideation. Each of these outcomes is unlikely to represent treatment “success” on its own. The lack of consensus regarding outcomes is a hindrance to making substantial and sustained progress in the field.
In this panel, we will debate the answer to the question: How do we know when an intervention for suicide risk ‘works’?” While reduction or elimination of deaths by suicide is a clear and shared goal, few intervention trials are powered to show such an effect. Therefore, researchers and clinicians are left with little guidance as to how to measure success of an intervention. Some topics to be addressed in the panel include: relevant outcome measures that should be included in suicide research trials, whether lowering (or eradicating) suicide ideation should be a primary goal of treatment (vs. tolerating suicidal thoughts), whether putative mechanisms for suicide risk (e.g., self-efficacy for managing suicidal thoughts, general work/social functioning) can be meaningful outcomes, whether outcomes should differ depending on diversity factors including age, gender identity, racial identity, religion, etc.
The academic panelists bring collective decades worth of experience working with suicidal populations from across the lifespan (youth to older adults) in both assessment and intervention trials. They bring varied opinions on the topics. In addition, 1-2 client stakeholders will be invited to participate in the panel, should it be accepted, to provide their feedback about what was most relevant to them in terms of treatment outcomes.