Trial Outcomes & Findings for SAFER: A Brief Intervention Involving Family Members in Suicide Safety Planning (NCT NCT03034863)

NCT ID: NCT03034863

Last Updated: 2021-12-10

Results Overview

Suicidality will be measured using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. The C-SSRS was used across time points to record level of ideation, lifetime suicide attempts, and recent suicide attempts. The follow-up version of C-SSRS measured suicidal ideation and behavior that had occurred since the last assessment. The scale has inter-rater reliability of .97 and has been used extensively in prospective suicide studies. The scale has a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 5. Higher scores mean a worse outcome (more severe ideation).

Recruitment status

COMPLETED

Study phase

NA

Target enrollment

78 participants

Primary outcome timeframe

POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Results posted on

2021-12-10

Participant Flow

The study recruited, consented, and randomized 39 Veterans at risk for suicide and 39 corresponding supporting partners over a 30-month period from a large VA medical center in a major metropolitan area in the North East. Recruitment sources included VA suicide prevention coordinators, a Veteran's primary clinician from the VA Medical Center's (VAMC) psychiatric inpatient unit or outpatient care center, or through community outreach (e.g., Vet Centers and higher education institutions).

Participant milestones

Participant milestones
Measure
SAFER
Safe Actions for Families to Encourage Recovery (SAFER): A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others. Safe Actions for Families to Encourage Recovery: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation.
I-SPI
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual, the currently mandated Individual Safety Planning Intervention (I-SPI). I-SPI incorporates update and use of the safety plan, which will then be uploaded to the Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS) so the Veterans' primary mental health providers can access. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual called the Individual Safety Planning Intervention (I-SPI).
Overall Study
STARTED
38
40
Overall Study
Veterans
19
20
Overall Study
Supporting Partners
19
20
Overall Study
COMPLETED
28
28
Overall Study
NOT COMPLETED
10
12

Reasons for withdrawal

Withdrawal data not reported

Baseline Characteristics

Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran age whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.

Baseline characteristics by cohort

Baseline characteristics by cohort
Measure
SAFER
n=38 Participants
SAFER: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns with assurance that such requests will be listened to with validation and support, creating an ally for the suicidal Veteran in his struggle. As discussed above, research has demonstrated compellingly that suicidal desire is motivated by two interpersonal factors; perceived burdensomeness and thwarted belongingness. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others. Safe Actions for Families to Encourage Recovery: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation.
I-SPI
n=40 Participants
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (E-TAU), the currently mandated Individual Safety Planning Intervention (I-SPI). I-SPI incorporates weekly scripted check-in phone calls to review mood symptoms and use of the safety plan, which will then be given as feedback to the Veteran's primary mental health provider. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual called the Individual Safety Planning Intervention (I-SPI).
Total
n=78 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
1 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
15 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
19 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
34 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
3 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
1 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
4 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Age, Continuous
48.68 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.24 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
42.55 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12.80 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
45.62 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.52 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver age whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Sex: Female, Male
Female
13 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
12 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
25 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Sex: Female, Male
Male
6 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
8 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
14 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver sex whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
6 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
8 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
14 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
13 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
12 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
25 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver ethnicity whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
1 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
0 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
8 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
10 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
18 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
5 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
7 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
1 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
4 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
5 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
4 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
7 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver race whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Region of Enrollment
United States
19 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver region of enrollment whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
20 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver region of enrollment whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
39 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at caregiver region of enrollment whereas overall number includes both caregiver and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Suicidal Ideation
3.26 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.69 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicidal ideation whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.75 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.33 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicidal ideation whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.51 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.51 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicidal ideation whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Suicide-Related Coping
3.03 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.71 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.91 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.65 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.97 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.68 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Partner Support of Suicide-Related Coping
3.23 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.81 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner support of suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.37 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.87 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner support of suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.3 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.84 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner support of suicide-related coping whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Thwarted Belongingness
3.23 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.02 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran thwarted belongingness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.62 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.9 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran thwarted belongingness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.96 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran thwarted belongingness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Perceived Burdensomeness
2.84 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.56 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran perceived burdensomeness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.03 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.61 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran perceived burdensomeness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.94 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 1.59 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran perceived burdensomeness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Supporting Partner Caregiver Burden
1.39 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.92 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver burden whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
1.06 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.96 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver burden whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
1.23 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.94 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver burden whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Hopelessness
6.95 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 5.79 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran hopelessness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
11.72 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.57 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran hopelessness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
9.34 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.18 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran hopelessness whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran Depression
24.36 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 11.75 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran depression whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
32.5 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.56 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran depression whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
28.43 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 13.66 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran depression whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Caregiver's Empowerment to Help Veteran
3.79 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.64 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver empowerment whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.75 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.80 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver empowerment whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
3.77 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.72 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Partner caregiver empowerment whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran's Report of Family Problem Solving
2.27 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.62 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family problem solving whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.44 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.74 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family problem solving whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.36 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.68 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family problem solving whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Veteran's Reports of Family Communication
2.42 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.37 • n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family communication whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.53 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.41 • n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family communication whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
2.48 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.39 • n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran reports of family communication whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
Number of Veterans with at least 1 Suicide Attempt
10 Participants
n=19 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide attempts whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
9 Participants
n=20 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide attempts whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.
19 Participants
n=39 Participants • Number analyzed in row differs from overall because this specifically looked at Veteran suicide attempts whereas overall number includes both Veteran and their dyad partner. Therefore the number analyzed is half the total of each condition.

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3 month follow up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Suicidality will be measured using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale. The C-SSRS was used across time points to record level of ideation, lifetime suicide attempts, and recent suicide attempts. The follow-up version of C-SSRS measured suicidal ideation and behavior that had occurred since the last assessment. The scale has inter-rater reliability of .97 and has been used extensively in prospective suicide studies. The scale has a minimum value of 0 and a maximum value of 5. Higher scores mean a worse outcome (more severe ideation).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Suicidal Ideation
Post-Treatment
1.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.93
3.50 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.43
Veteran Suicidal Ideation
Extended Follow-Up
1.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.31
3.38 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 2.13

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to supporting partners (does not include Veterans) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Caregiver burden will be evaluated by the Caregiver Burden Inventory (CBI), a 24-item scale assessing caregiver burden in four areas: physical, social, emotional and time dependence burden. Investigators found a large effect size in the pilot multifamily group study on this scale (Cohen's d = 1.03). Items were averaged to create an overall measure of caregiver burden and showed excellent internal consistency in this study (α =.94). CBI scores range from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum). Higher scores mean a worse outcome (greater caregiver burden).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=13 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=13 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Supporting Partner Caregiver Burden
Post-Treatment
1.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.85
1.00 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.86
Supporting Partner Caregiver Burden
Extended Follow-Up
0.90 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
0.72 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.67

PRIMARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

These are the number of Veterans who reported at least one or more behaviors coded as "actual suicide attempts" since last visit using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS). The follow-up version of C-SSRS measured suicidal ideation and behavior that had occurred since the last assessment. The scale has inter-rater reliability of .97 and has been used extensively in prospective suicide studies. A behavior was considered an "actual suicide attempt" if it was a potentially self-injurious act with any intent to die associated with it.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Number of Veterans With at Least 1 Suicide Attempt
Post-Treatment
0 Participants
2 Participants
Number of Veterans With at Least 1 Suicide Attempt
Extended Follow-Up
0 Participants
1 Participants

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Suicide-related coping will be evaluated by the Stanley Suicide-related Coping Scale (SRCS), a 21-item self-report measure developed by Stanley, Green, Holloway, Brenner \& Brown to evaluate appraisal of one's ability to cope with suicidal ideation and urges, as well as ability to use the Safety Plan. Examples of items are: "I am at the mercy of my suicidal thoughts", "I have several things I can do to get through a suicidal crisis". Scores were averaged so that higher scores represent greater confidence and breadth of approaches to coping with suicidal thoughts and feelings (better outcome). SRCS scores have a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 4.

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Suicide Related Coping
Extended Follow-Up
3.12 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.59
2.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.86
Veteran Suicide Related Coping
Post-Treatment
3.15 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.71
2.69 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.02

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Thwarted belongingness will be evaluated by Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ-15). The INQ is has demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for thwarted belongingness in this sample (TB) (α =.79). Scores on each subscale were averaged so that higher scores represent a greater degree of their respective constructs. Thwarted belongingness scores range from 1 (minimum) to 6 (maximum). Higher scores mean a worse outcome (decreased feelings of belongingness).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Thwarted Belongingness
Post-Treatment
2.85 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.27
3.57 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.22
Veteran Thwarted Belongingness
Extended Follow-Up
3.30 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.46
3.45 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.95

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to supporting partners (does not include Veterans) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

We have developed a family counterpart to the Stanley Suicide-related Coping Scale for Veterans that taps family members' appraisal of their ability to participate effectively in Veteran safety planning. Items include, "I recognize the triggers and warning signs for suicidal ideation/urges for my Veteran" and "I know the numbers for the mobile crisis team to contact and nearest hospital or urgent care facility to accompany my Veteran to in a crisis." This measure will be validated against the more general Family Empowerment Scale. Items were rated on a 0 (Strongly Disagree) to 4 (Strongly Agree) scale and were averaged with higher scores indicating greater self-efficacy when supporting the Veteran through suicidal crises (better outcome). Partner SRCS scores range from 0 (minimum) to 4 (maximum).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=13 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=13 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Partner Support of Suicide-Related Coping
Post-Treatment
3.65 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.46
3.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.71
Partner Support of Suicide-Related Coping
Extended Follow-Up
3.70 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.57
2.89 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.4

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Perceived burdensomeness will be evaluated by Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ-15). The INQ is has demonstrated excellent internal consistency for Perceived Burdensomeness (PB) (α= .95). Scores on each subscale were averaged so that higher scores represent a greater degree of their respective constructs. Perceived burdensomeness scores range from 1 (minimum) to 6 (maximum). Higher scores mean a worse outcome (greater perceived burdensomeness).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Perceived Burdensomeness
Post-Treatment
2.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.39
2.60 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.68
Veteran Perceived Burdensomeness
Extended Follow-Up
2.10 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.63
2.86 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.42

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3 month follow up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Veteran hopelessness will be evaluated by the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS), a 20-item self-report measure with adequate reliability and validity which has been predictive of suicide in psychiatric inpatients. The BHS measures three aspects of hopelessness: feelings about the future, loss of motivation, and expectations. Items are true-false and are summed to get a total BHS score, ranging from 0 to 20. Higher scores reflect a worse outcome (greater hopelessness).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Hopelessness
Post-Treatment
7.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.49
11.73 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.06
Veteran Hopelessness
Extended Follow-Up
9.09 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 7.84
12.61 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 6.70

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Veteran depression will be evaluated by the widely-used Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II) (Cronbach's = .92). The BDI-II contains 21 items assessing depressive symptoms, each with minimum scores of 0 and maximum scores of 3. Item scores were summed, leading to a total score range of 0-63. Higher scores mean a worse outcome (more severe depressive symptoms).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran Depression
Post-Treatment
21.20 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.92
29.07 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 18.67
Veteran Depression
Extended Follow-Up
18.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 16.20
31.08 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 17.67

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to supporting partners (does not include Veterans) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Caregiving self-efficacy/empowerment will be evaluated using the 12-item family subscale from the Family Empowerment Scale. This scale assesses the family's knowledge of mental health services and perceived ability to manage crises, and has demonstrated sensitivity to change in family intervention studies. Each item has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 5, and were averaged to create a total score range of 1-5. Higher scores mean a better outcome (greater empowerment).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=13 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=13 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Caregiver's Empowerment to Help Veteran
Post-Treatment
3.71 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.78
3.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.94
Caregiver's Empowerment to Help Veteran
Extended Follow-Up
3.91 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.67
3.87 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.86

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Veterans' reports of family problem solving will be evaluated by the 5-item Problem Solving subscale of the Family Assessment Device (FAD). Subscales have acceptable internal consistency (α = .72 to .83). Each item has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 4, and were averaged to create a total score range of 1-4. Higher scores reflect worse outcomes (lower problem solving ability).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran's Report of Family Problem Solving
Post-Treatment
2.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.86
2.23 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.81
Veteran's Report of Family Problem Solving
Extended Follow-Up
2.36 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.64
2.40 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 1.01

SECONDARY outcome

Timeframe: POST TREATMENT ASSESSMENT- After completing intervention (Range 0.30-7.47 months; Mean=2.84 months from baseline); EXTENDED FOLLOWUP- 3-months after providing follow-up up to 1 year from enrollment (Range 3.10-11.43 months; Mean=6.32 months from baseline)

Population: Some participants lost between baseline and post-treatment follow-up and extended 3-month follow-up. These groups specifically refer to Veterans (does not include supporting partners) and therefore include about half of the total participants in the study.

Veterans' reports of family communication will be evaluated by the 6-item Communication subscale of the Family Assessment Device (FAD). Subscales have acceptable internal consistency (α = .72 to .83). Each item has a minimum score of 1 and a maximum score of 4, and were averaged to create a total score range of 1-4. Higher scores reflect worse outcomes (worse communication).

Outcome measures

Outcome measures
Measure
Veterans in SAFER
n=15 Participants
Veteran participants in the SAFER (intervention) condition
Veterans in I-SPI
n=15 Participants
Veterans in the I-SPI (control) condition
Veteran's Report of Family Communication
Post-Treatment
2.34 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.39
2.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.54
Veteran's Report of Family Communication
Extended Follow-Up
2.33 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.28
2.27 units on a scale
Standard Deviation 0.44

Adverse Events

SAFER: Veterans

Serious events: 1 serious events
Other events: 1 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

I-SPI: Veterans

Serious events: 2 serious events
Other events: 1 other events
Deaths: 1 deaths

SAFER: Caregivers

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths

I-SPI: Caregivers

Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 1 deaths

Serious adverse events

Serious adverse events
Measure
SAFER: Veterans
n=19 participants at risk
SAFER: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others. Safe Actions for Families to Encourage Recovery: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation.
I-SPI: Veterans
n=20 participants at risk
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (E-TAU), incorporating update and use of the safety plan, which will then be uploaded to CPRS so the Veterans' primary mental health providers can access. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (TAU).
SAFER: Caregivers
n=19 participants at risk
SAFER: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others.
I-SPI: Caregivers
n=20 participants at risk
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (E-TAU), incorporating update and use of the safety plan, which will then be uploaded to CPRS so the Veterans' primary mental health providers can access. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (TAU).
Surgical and medical procedures
Knee Operation
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/20 • 1 year, 8 months
Psychiatric disorders
Psychiatric Hospitalization
5.3%
1/19 • Number of events 1 • 1 year, 8 months
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/20 • 1 year, 8 months

Other adverse events

Other adverse events
Measure
SAFER: Veterans
n=19 participants at risk
SAFER: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others. Safe Actions for Families to Encourage Recovery: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation.
I-SPI: Veterans
n=20 participants at risk
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (E-TAU), incorporating update and use of the safety plan, which will then be uploaded to CPRS so the Veterans' primary mental health providers can access. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (TAU).
SAFER: Caregivers
n=19 participants at risk
SAFER: A novel, 4-session intervention to enhance currently mandated VA suicide safety planning by involving family members to support its implementation. Incorporation of education about suicide risk factors and teaching communication skills of active listening and making a positive request will supply Veterans and family members with the knowledge and tools needed to 1) identify potential warning signs, and 2) discuss Veteran ideation or family concerns. SAFER aims to increase family support for the Veteran to directly mitigate Veteran loneliness and sense of being a burden to others.
I-SPI: Caregivers
n=20 participants at risk
The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (E-TAU), incorporating update and use of the safety plan, which will then be uploaded to CPRS so the Veterans' primary mental health providers can access. Treatment-as-Usual: The comparison condition will be an assessment-only enhanced treatment-as-usual (TAU).
Renal and urinary disorders
ER for Urination Issue
5.3%
1/19 • Number of events 1 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/20 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/20 • 1 year, 8 months
Nervous system disorders
ER for Dizziness
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
5.0%
1/20 • Number of events 1 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/19 • 1 year, 8 months
0.00%
0/20 • 1 year, 8 months

Additional Information

Marianne Goodman, MD

James J Peters VAMC

Phone: 718-584-9000

Results disclosure agreements

  • Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
  • Publication restrictions are in place