Safe Treatment for Emergency Presentation for Suicidal Ideation and Behavior in Youth
NCT ID: NCT05304065
Last Updated: 2025-12-31
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
RECRUITING
PHASE2
1600 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2022-10-17
2026-12-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Electronic, Self-Guided Safety Plan in Adolescents: Project SAFER
NCT06868407
Effectiveness of a Family-Based Intervention for Adolescent Suicide Attempters (The SAFETY Study)
NCT00692302
Examining Feasibility, Acceptability, and Sustainability of a Novel Personalized Smartphone Intervention for Suicide - Randomized Trial
NCT05202756
Implementing a Brief Suicide Intervention for High Risk Youth With Front-Line Juvenile Justice Staff
NCT02981420
Family Intervention for Suicidal Youth: Emergency Care
NCT00558805
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Suicide is currently the second leading cause of death for U.S. youth ages 13-24, responsible for more deaths than any major illness. Youth with serious suicidal behavior or thoughts often present to the nation's Emergency Departments (EDs), particularly youth who make potentially deadly suicide attempts. Evidence is limited regarding optimal interventions for reducing the risk of fatal and nonfatal suicide attempts in these youth, and tested interventions include multiple components. One dimension along which these interventions vary is timing. Some interventions are delivered in the ED, others focus on aftercare, and others combine ED and aftercare interventions. Current evidence supports effectiveness of some interventions for reducing later suicide attempts and improving the likelihood that youth will receive mental health treatment after leaving the ED. However, evidence gaps exist regarding: 1) whether it is sufficient to focus on providing an evidence-based intervention in the ED, or whether a post-ED aftercare intervention is needed to improve youth outcomes; and 2) for which patient subgroups a combined ED and aftercare treatment may be indicated. Answering these questions is vital for guiding resource allocation, as ED care emphasizes care in the ED with limited resources for aftercare.
Study Aims:
The study addresses this evidence gap by comparing two evidence-based interventions for reducing suicide attempts and improving outcomes for youth presenting to EDs with suicidal episodes: 1) Safety-Acute(A) integrated within ED care, a crisis therapy/safety planning intervention in the ED focused on enhancing safety (previously called Family Intervention for Suicide Prevention, FISP); and 2) SAFETY-A/ED care plus the Coping Long-term with Active Suicide Program (CLASP), comprised of brief therapeutic follow-up contacts after discharge from the ED/hospital. Evidence supports benefits of both interventions individually. SAFETY-A/FISP is listed in the National Register of Evidence-Based Practices, and CLASP is being implemented in some Veterans Administration Hospitals. The first aim is to evaluate whether SAFETY-A/ED Care combined with CLASP aftercare is superior to SAFETY- A/ED Care alone for reducing the risk of suicide attempts and increasing initiation of follow-up mental health treatment. Second, the investigators examine heterogeneity of treatment effects among subgroups, hypothesizing that in this large diverse sample the strongest benefits of the combined SAFETY-A/ED Care plus CLASP intervention will be seen in youth who are from ethnic or racial minority groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged, and from rural communities. Third, the investigators aim to increase the value and relevance of the study by engaging patients, parents, family members, providers, and health and mental healthcare system stakeholders in project leadership and activities throughout the study and implement a partnered dissemination plan to enhance the potential for study findings to inform clinical practice and health care delivery.
Study Description:
The patient population includes 1,600 youth ages 13-24 presenting to EDs with suicidal ideation or behavior in 4 communities across the country selected to include a diverse population (racial, ethnic, rural vs urban, public vs private insurance): California/Los Angeles; North Carolina; Rhode Island; Utah. Youth are randomly assigned to: 1) SAFETY-A/ED Care; or 2) SAFETY-A/ED Care plus CLASP. Assessments are conducted at the start of the study and at 3, 6, and 12-month follow-ups. Primary outcomes are suicide attempts and mental health treatment initiation. Secondary outcomes are overall self-harm (including suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-harm) and treatment engagement/dose. Exploratory outcomes are: severity of youth suicidality; youth functioning and quality of life; and improvement on three problems prioritized by the youth and parent or significant other as "top problems." The investigators also examine change in identified protective and risk factors (e.g. connectedness, hopelessness, and perceived barriers to treatment). The investigators partner with diverse stakeholders, develop a Stakeholder Council, and include stakeholder partners in project leadership and activities with the goals of promoting 2-way knowledge exchange and enhancing the value of the study for improving patient care and outcomes.
Significance:
Study results will clarify whether the additional resources needed to provide brief therapeutic follow-up calls after an ED intervention leads to improved outcomes, and which patient subgroups are most likely to benefit from a treatment approach that provides therapeutic contact both during the ED visit and after discharge from the ED. This information can guide decision makers regarding how to best develop services and service systems to improve patient outcomes and achieve national suicide prevention goals, including for diverse groups to improve equity.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
SAFETY-Acute within Usual ED Care
The SAFETY-Acute (A) approach to safety planning and stabilization will be integrated within usual ED Care. SAFETY-A was formerly called the Family Intervention for Suicide Prevention, FISP.
SAFETY-A within usual ED Care
SAFETY-A is a single session collaborative, strengths-based, developmentally nuanced, cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBT) to increase safety and mental health treatment initiation. The therapist works with the youth and family (or significant other, SO) separately and together to build hope and reasons for living, develop a personal safety plan, increase protective supports; and increase motivation for and linkage to treatment.
Combined
The combined treatment arm includes both 1) SAFETY-A integrated within usual ED Care, and 2) therapeutic follow-up contacts using the Coping Long Term with Active Suicidality Program (CLASP) model.
Combined SAFETY-A within usual ED Care + CLASP Therapeutic Follow-Up Contacts
COMB, includes SAFETY-A within usual ED care plus CLASP therapeutic and caring follow-up contacts designed to strengthen safety and treatment initiation and engagement. Core functions of CLASP include: building hope/reducing hopelessness; enhancing social/family support; strengthening problem-solving; and increasing treatment initiation and engagement.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
SAFETY-A within usual ED Care
SAFETY-A is a single session collaborative, strengths-based, developmentally nuanced, cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBT) to increase safety and mental health treatment initiation. The therapist works with the youth and family (or significant other, SO) separately and together to build hope and reasons for living, develop a personal safety plan, increase protective supports; and increase motivation for and linkage to treatment.
Combined SAFETY-A within usual ED Care + CLASP Therapeutic Follow-Up Contacts
COMB, includes SAFETY-A within usual ED care plus CLASP therapeutic and caring follow-up contacts designed to strengthen safety and treatment initiation and engagement. Core functions of CLASP include: building hope/reducing hopelessness; enhancing social/family support; strengthening problem-solving; and increasing treatment initiation and engagement.
Other Intervention Names
Discover alternative or legacy names that may be used to describe the listed interventions across different sources.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* past-week suicidal behavior or ideation with plan or intent
Exclusion Criteria
* youth not fluent in English
* parent not fluent in English or Spanish.
13 Years
24 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Duke University
OTHER
Brown University
OTHER
University of Utah
OTHER
Olive View-UCLA Education & Research Institute
OTHER
RAND
OTHER
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute
OTHER
University of California, Los Angeles
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Joan Asarnow
Professor of Psychiatry & Biboehavioral Sciences
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Joan R Asarnow, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
University of California, Los Angeles
David Goldston, PhD
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Duke University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Ronald Reagan Medical Center
Los Angeles, California, United States
Olive View UCLA Education and Research Center
Sylmar, California, United States
Duke University
Durham, North Carolina, United States
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island, United States
University of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
Related Links
Access external resources that provide additional context or updates about the study.
Study description on PCORI site
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
SP-2020C3-21078
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.