CONTACT US: Contact info
|
Citation |
Castaigne E, Hardy P, Mouaffak F. Encephale (1974) 2016; 43(1): 75-80. |
|
Vernacular Title |
La veille sanitaire dans la prise en charge des suicidants. Quels outils, quels effets, comment les évaluer ? |
|
Affiliation |
Service de psychiatrie de Bicêtre, université Paris-Sud, 94276 le Kremlin-Bicêtre, France; Université Paris-Sud, U1178, 78, rue du Pr-Leclerc, 94276 le Kremlin-Bicêtre cedex, France; INSERM, 75679 Paris, France. |
|
Copyright |
(Copyright © 2016, Masson Editeur) |
|
DOI |
|
PMID |
27692348 |
|
Abstract |
After attempting suicide, 60 to 70% of patients are discharged from emergency departments and referred to outpatient treatment which entails psychosocial strategies, pharmacological strategies or a combination. The main objective of outpatient care consists in preventing recurrent suicidal behavior. Yet suicide attempters have been found to be very difficult to engage in treatment. Between 11% and 50% of attempters refuse outpatient treatment or drop out of outpatient therapy very quickly. In order to address this extremely serious issue, for the past 20 years monitoring or follow up interventions has been presented as a promising approach. Follow-up intervention is defined as a service that aims at both increased access to and engagement in care as well as to prevent suicide and related behaviors. This approach consists in "stay in contact" or "connectedness" protocols using phone calls or tele-assistance, sending letters, email or mobile phone messages and medical visits or nursing at home. From one study to another these tools have been used separately, associated to one another or reinforced by motivational interviewing or brief psychotherapy. To our knowledge, since 1993 16 controlled and randomized controlled studies assessed the effectiveness of diverse follow-up. Four studies assessing telephone follow up reported a significant decrease in suicide reattempt while one study evaluating a sending letters strategy reported positive results. Among five studies assessing engagement in healthcare, only two (one using phone follow up and the other sending letters reported significantly positive results. The refusal rate of monitoring strategies has not exceeded 11% attesting to the high applicability of these methods. Despite several positive results, we cannot draw firm conclusions on replicability of these results. This is largely due to methodological issues: lack of standardization of interventions, lack of consensus on definition of the main measured variables (recurrent suicidal behavior, engagement in healthcare) but also to the confounding effect of other care approaches frequently associated with follow up intervention services. Further studies and research should be conducted as follow-up intervention services are increasingly used in suicide prevention because of their good acceptability and usefulness. Language: fr |