The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta-analysis
The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta-analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/sltb.12765
复制
发表时间：
2021-05-17
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Penix, Elizabeth A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Swift, Joshua K.;Trusty, Wilson T.;Penix, Elizabeth A.
引言本荟萃分析的目的是测试的有效性的合作评估和管理的自杀（CAMS）干预对其他常用的干预措施治疗自杀意念和其他suicide-related variables.Method数据库，专家，根和分支搜索确定了9个实证研究，直接比较CAMS其他积极的干预措施。随机效应模型用于计算干预措施之间的效应量差异;结果与其他干预措施相比，CAMS干预组的自杀意念发生率显著低于对照组（d = 0.25）和一般痛苦（d = 0.29），显著更高的治疗可接受性（d = 0.42），和显著更高的希望/更低的绝望（d = 0.88）。自杀企图、自残、其他自杀相关因素或成本效益方面没有显著差异。自杀意念的效应量差异是一致的研究类型和质量，时间的结果测量，年龄和种族的参与者，但是，有利于CAMS的效应量显着较小的现役军人/退伍军人样本和男性participator.Conclusions现有的研究支持CAMS作为一个良好的支持干预自杀意念的疾病控制和预防中心的标准。局限性和未来的方向进行了讨论。
Introduction This meta-analysis aimed to test the efficacy of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) intervention against other commonly used interventions for the treatment of suicide ideation and other suicide-related variables.Method Database, expert, and root and branch searches identified nine empirical studies that directly compared CAMS to other active interventions. A random effects model was used to calculate the effect size differences between the interventions; additionally, moderators of the effect sizes were tested for suicidal ideation.Results In comparison to alternative interventions, CAMS resulted in significantly lower suicidal ideation (d = 0.25) and general distress (d = 0.29), significantly higher treatment acceptability (d = 0.42), and significantly higher hope/lower hopelessness (d = 0.88). No significant differences for suicide attempts, self-harm, other suicide-related correlates, or cost effectiveness were observed. The effect size differences for suicidal ideation were consistent across study types and quality, timing of outcome measurement, and the age and ethnicity of participants; however, the effect sizes favoring CAMS were significantly smaller with active duty military/veteran samples and with male participants.Conclusions The existing research supports CAMS as a Well Supported intervention for suicidal ideation per Center of Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Limitations and future directions are discussed.