4.5 Review

Neurobiological research with suicidal participants: A framework for investigators

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 62, Issue -, Pages 43-48

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2019.11.007

Keywords

Suicide; Clinical trials; Implementation

Categories

Funding

  1. Intramural Research Program at the National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health (IRP-NIMH-NIH) [NCT02543983, 15-M-0188, ZIAMH002927]
  2. NARSAD Independent Investigator Award
  3. Brain and Behavior Mood Disorders Research Award
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [ZIAMH002927, ZIAMH002857] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: Suicide is a public health threat. Nevertheless, the research literature on actively suicidal participants is relatively sparse, in part because they are often excluded from medical, psychiatric, and psychological research for a host of logistical, ethical, and safety concerns. These obstacles to research participation and enrollment may contribute to our lack of understanding regarding the neurobiology of the suicidal crisis as well as to the dearth of evidence concerning both risk prediction and treatment. Method: In order to directly investigate neurobiological markers of acute suicide risk, the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program (NIMH-IRP) implemented the Neurobiology of Suicide protocol. In this protocol, actively suicidal individuals consent to research for both neurobiological assessment and potential rapid-acting interventions. Results and conclusions: This article reviews lessons learned from implementing this protocol in the hopes of assisting future research on the neurobiology of suicide. Areas of specific discussion include the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), recruitment and informed consent, participant monitoring, and the safety of the physical environment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available