@article{ref1,
title="Suicide risk assessment [Comment on: Assessment of suicide risk in mental health practice]",
journal="Lancet psychiatry",
year="2022",
author="Large, Matthew M. and Soper, C. A. and Ryan, Christopher J.",
volume="9",
number="12",
pages="938-939",
abstract="Re:  Hawton K Lascelles K Pitman A Gilbert S Silverman M   Assessment of suicide risk in mental health practice: shifting from prediction to therapeutic assessment, formulation, and risk management.  Lancet Psychiatry. 2022; (published online Aug 8.) https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00232-2  In a Personal View published in August, 2022, Hawton and colleagues show the predictive limits of suicide risk assessment and call for a more comprehensive and therapeutic approach to assessing, formulating, and managing risk of suicide. Their article critiques risk prediction (risk assessment) and offers an alternative, described as &quot;therapeutic risk assessment and formulation&quot;. We believe that the authors' criticisms of risk assessment are not comprehensive enough and that the solution they suggest--assessing suicide risk using their own list of risk factors--has the same inherent flaws as other methods.    Hawton and colleagues overlook what we see as the primary problem. They focus on three difficulties with suicide risk assessment: the limitations of clinical judgment about suicide; the unreliability of self-reports of suicidal ideation; and the poor performance of suicide risk scales. Although all these criticisms are valid, risk assessment could still be a viable way of stratifying groups of people at different likelihoods of suicide if there were a range of risk factors that could be used to usefully define risk categories. However, none exist.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2215-0374",
doi="10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00314-5",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00314-5"
}