14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Viewpoint: Toward Involvement of Caregivers in Suicide Prevention Strategies; Ethical Issues and Perspectives

      discussion

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          AIM The aim of this article is to investigate the potential impacts implication of caregivers as a resource in care management of patients at risk of suicide. Suicide Prevention Challenges Suicide prevention research faces specific challenges related to characteristics of suicide attempts and attempters (Wasserman, 2004). Suicide attempters have been described as poorly adhering to intensive treatment over time, and delivery of interventions in the emergency department can be difficult, where psychiatric staff availability is often limited or absent. The post-discharge period constitutes a critical challenge for emergency and mental health care services both in the short and long terms (Hunt et al., 2009). Given these issues, there has been growing interest in assessing the efficacy of post discharge intervention after a suicide attempt. For example, brief contact interventions (BCIs) are low resources interventions seeking to maintain long-term contact with patients after a suicide attempt (Milner et al., 2015). These interventions intent to reinforce the health care networking around the patient but only rely on mental health and emergency services. Depression, drug misuse, family and social situations are well established suicide risk factors (Zalsman et al., 2016). Recent findings also showed the correlation between sleep disturbances and suicidality from a clinical point of view (Pompili et al., 2013). Including protective factors in suicide risk management might be of great interest. However, prevention strategies often exclude form the preventative procedure an essential preventative component of patients social network: the caregiver (Mann et al., 2005). Indeed, studies showed the potential positive impacts of caregivers in the management of important suicide risk factors as depression (Joling et al., 2012), and social isolation (Chatterjee et al., 2014). Involving the Caregivers in the Suicide Prevention Process A caregiver, or carer, is an unpaid or paid member of a person's social network who helps them with activities of daily living. Caregiving is most commonly used to address impairments related to old age, disability, a disease, or a mental disorder (Berk et al., 2013). Referred to as informal caregivers, caregivers provide a complex array of support tasks that extend across physical, psychological, spiritual, and emotional domains. Studies have shown that caregivers and close contacts are reliable sources of information about patients with psychiatric disorders. Caregivers do not exactly provide medical care, but can be considered as partners in the care as suggested by Fredman and Daly (Fredman and Daly, 1993). Traditional psychiatric assessment, however, does not always include information from caregivers due to time constraints, concerns about confidentiality and the risk of caregiver burden (Adelman et al., 2014). By excluding caregivers from assessments, clinicians may miss an opportunity to obtain additional valuable information about the illness course. Including caregivers in innovative prevention strategies could strongly improve the insight regarding patients' suicide risk situation. Moreover, the involvement of the caregivers in a patient's assessment may facilitate the implementation of a step-by-step personalized prevention program during care transitions (e.g., hospital to home). This strategy may evolve into an all-embracing, tailored partnership involving healthcare professionals, patients, and their caregiver. Furthermore, the involvement of the caregivers means that they are able to play an important part in providing support and detecting warning signs when indicated. Caregivers are potential allies in the suicide prevention without, however, taking the place of healthcare professionals (Sun and Long, 2008). Caregiver Involvement: Opportunities and Issues Despite these promising opportunities, issues are raised regarding the assimilation of caregivers designated by patients at risk of suicide. Support for the patient on the part of his/her network in the vast majority of cases creates opportunities to relieve relatives of the strain of overwork. However, some studies have intended to involve the caregiver in a suicide prevention approach. For example, according to Sun et al., caregivers are able to play an important part in providing support and detecting warning signs and are potential allies in suicide prevention (Sun et al., 2009). Family caregivers' suicide caring competence is important to prevent their relatives with suicidal tendencies from attempting suicide. Authors stated that clinicians and nurses are typically educated and trained to care for patients with suicidal tendencies, but family caregivers of suicidal individuals do not receive the same level of suicide care education. Family caregivers may lack competence to care for their relatives with suicidal ideations and/or behaviors. In this perspective, Sun et al. proposed an assessment of suicide caring competence which may help clinicians to assess the caring competence of family caregivers and provide proper suicide care education. In this perspective, caregiver could be involved systematically at the time of discharge of patients at suicide risk (Sun et al., 2014). Caregivers and healthcare professionals should strive to create between themselves and with the suicidal patient a back-and-forth dynamic, wherein the risk of caregiver burden is a constant threat and urges caution on the part of all involved. Tacitly taken for granted, the role of caregivers is at best reduced to that of auxiliaries, providing little more than emotional or material support to the patient, for whom they may as a last resort act as a spokesperson (Fredman and Daly, 1993). The patient will surely benefit from the implication of his/her caregiver in a preventative approach. Toward the Involvement of Caregivers in Suicide Prevention Strategies? Few studies have emphasized the family caregivers of suicidal individuals. No study has explored the relationship between family caregivers' caring stress with suicidal attitudes and suicide care ability. What does the caregiver paper adds to existing knowledge (Chiang et al., 2015)? Caregivers may be the primary interface with the health care system often receive inadequate support from health professionals and frequently feel abandoned and unrecognized by the health care system. Mental health clinicians could help caregivers become aware of the emotional pain that suicidal people experience and then promote their positive attitudes toward their suicidal relatives. Caregivers could increase their ability to care for their suicidal relatives, which could reduce the numbers of suicides. Caregivers naturally play an essential role in supporting the well-being and care of patient at risk of suicide. Clinicians should identify their patients' caregivers, inquire about their caregiving experience, and benefit from a caregiver assessment. They should engage caregivers as proactive partners in care based on the involvement they can handle and the help they may need. We advocate that, as other preventative interventions, the efficacy of the involvement of caregivers in a suicide prevention strategy should be assessed in further researches. Author Contributions All authors listed have made a substantial, direct and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication. Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

          Related collections

          Most cited references11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effectiveness of a community-based intervention for people with schizophrenia and their caregivers in India (COPSI): a randomised controlled trial

          Summary Background Observational evidence suggests that community-based services for people with schizophrenia can be successfully provided by community health workers, when supervised by specialists, in low-income and middle-income countries. We did the COmmunity care for People with Schizophrenia in India (COPSI) trial to compare the effectiveness of a collaborative community-based care intervention with standard facility-based care. Methods We did a multicentre, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial at three sites in India between Jan 1, 2009 and Dec 31, 2010. Patients aged 16–60 years with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia according to the tenth edition of the International Classification of Diseases, Diagnostic Criteria for Research (ICD-10-DCR) were randomly assigned (2:1), via a computer-generated randomisation list with block sizes of three, six, or nine, to receive either collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care or facility-based care alone. Randomisation was stratified by study site. Outcome assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was a change in symptoms and disabilities over 12 months, as measured by the positive and negative syndrome scale (PANSS) and the Indian disability evaluation and assessment scale (IDEAS). Analysis was by modified intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 56877013. Findings 187 participants were randomised to the collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care group and 95 were randomised to the facility-based care alone group; 253 (90%) participants completed follow-up to month 12. At 12 months, total PANSS and IDEAS scores were lower in patients in the intervention group than in those in the control group (PANSS adjusted mean difference −3·75, 95% CI −7·92 to 0·42; p=0·08; IDEAS −0·95, −1·68 to −0·23; p=0·01). However, no difference was shown in the proportion of participants who had a reduction of more than 20% in overall symptoms (PANSS 85 [51%] in the intervention group vs 44 [51%] in the control group; p=0·89; IDEAS 75 [48%] vs 28 [35%]). We noted a significant reduction in symptom and disability outcomes at the rural Tamil Nadu site (−9·29, −15·41 to −3·17; p=0·003). Two patients (one in each group) died by suicide during the study, and two patients died because of complications of a road traffic accident and pre-existing cardiac disease. 18 (73%) patients (17 in the intervention group) were admitted to hospital during the course of the trial, of whom seven were admitted because of physical health problems, such as acute gastritis and vomiting, road accident, high fever, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation The collaborative community-based care plus facility-based care intervention is modestly more effective than facility-based care, especially for reducing disability and symptoms of psychosis. Our results show that the study intervention is best implemented as an initial service in settings where services are scarce, for example in rural areas. Funding Wellcome Trust.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Letters, green cards, telephone calls and postcards: systematic and meta-analytic review of brief contact interventions for reducing self-harm, suicide attempts and suicide.

            There is growing interest in brief contact interventions for self-harm and suicide attempt.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Suicide in recently discharged psychiatric patients: a case-control study.

              Few controlled studies have specifically investigated aspects of mental health care in relation to suicide risk among recently discharged psychiatric patients. We aimed to identify risk factors, including variation in healthcare received, for suicide within 3 months of discharge. We conducted a national population-based case-control study of 238 psychiatric patients dying by suicide within 3 months of hospital discharge, matched on date of discharge to 238 living controls. Forty-three per cent of suicides occurred within a month of discharge, 47% of whom died before their first follow-up appointment. The first week and the first day after discharge were particular high-risk periods. Risk factors for suicide included a history of self-harm, a primary diagnosis of affective disorder, recent last contact with services and expressing clinical symptoms at last contact with staff. Suicide cases were more likely to have initiated their own discharge and to have missed their last appointment with services. Patients who were detained for compulsory treatment at last admission, or who were subject to enhanced levels of aftercare, were less likely to die by suicide. The weeks after discharge from psychiatric care represent a critical period for suicide risk. Measures that could reduce risk include intensive and early community follow-up. Assessment of risk should include established risk factors as well as current mental state and there should be clear follow-up procedures for those who have self-discharged. Recent detention under the Mental Health Act and current use of enhanced levels of aftercare may be protective.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Psychol
                Front Psychol
                Front. Psychol.
                Frontiers in Psychology
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                1664-1078
                18 December 2018
                2018
                : 9
                : 2457
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Brest Medical University Hospital at Bohars, Adult Psychiatry , Bohars, France
                [2] 2IMT Atlantique, Lab-STICC , Brest, France
                Author notes

                Edited by: Jorge Lopez-Castroman, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nîmes, France

                Reviewed by: Gianluca Serafini, Dipartimento di Neuroscienze e Organi di Senso, Ospedale San Martino (IRCCS), Italy

                *Correspondence: Valérie Le Moal valerie.lemoal@ 123456chu-brest.fr

                This article was submitted to Clinical and Health Psychology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Psychology

                Article
                10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02457
                6305421
                30618917
                25368375-42ac-41d2-94d2-31081003b4f0
                Copyright © 2018 Le Moal, Lemey, Walter and Berrouiguet.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 15 May 2018
                : 20 November 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 15, Pages: 3, Words: 1814
                Funding
                Funded by: Université de Bretagne Occidentale 10.13039/501100006703
                Categories
                Psychology
                Opinion

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                suicide,attempted-caregiver,designated-ethics-responsibility-vulnerability,prevention strategies,ethical issues

                Comments

                Comment on this article