Doctoral Student Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana, United States
Body of Abstract: Research
Aims: Suicide safety planning-type interventions encompass a family of brief interventions that assist in maintaining one’s safety during crises (e.g., experiencing suicidal thoughts and behavior) and can be administered in various administration methods, both in-person and digitally. Given that research suggests the importance of safety planning quality for promoting positive clinical outcomes, it is important to evaluate the quality of safety plans created using various administration methods. To examine this, the present study sought to compare traditional clinician-administered safety planning and two digital safety plan tools that provide differing levels of user supports, with respect to the quality of safety plans produced using each method of administration. Accordingly, we conducted a randomized trial utilizing three administration methods including: (a) traditional, clinician-administered safety plan; (b) the Safety Planning Assistant, which is a self-administered digital safety planning tool with substantial user support; and (c) mysafetyplan.org, which is a publicly available self-administered digital safety planning tool with minimal user support.
Methods: Conducted in a university lab space, participants (college students, 18 years or older, with past-year suicidal ideation; n = 135) were randomly assigned to one of three safety planning administration methods: traditional, in-person (n = 43), the Safety Planning Assistant (n = 44), and mysafetyplan.org (n = 48). Two weeks following the initial study visit, all participants received a follow-up survey via email to assess self-reported mood and cognitions, satisfaction with the developed safety plan, and utilization of the plan.
Results: Results indicate that traditional in-person safety planning and the Safety Planning Assistant produce significantly greater quality safety plans than mysafetyplan.org, F(2, 130) = 30.960, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.349. Additionally, those with higher quality safety plans reported higher satisfaction (F(2, 130) = 4.611, p = 0.012, partial eta squared = 0.065) and spent a significantly longer amount of time developing their plans, F(2, 130) = 23.874, p < 0.001, partial eta squared = 0.269.
Conclusion: This study indicates that the Safety Planning Assistant may produce of equal quality suicide safety plans as traditional in-person safety planning, such as the Safety Planning Intervention, as well as comparable client satisfaction and plan utilization rates. This indicates that self-administered digital suicide safety planning tools with substantial user support may be a viable option for increasing accessibility to the intervention, especially in settings where demand outweighs available resources. Digital suicide safety planning tools should be offered with caution however, as platforms that rely on self-administration with minimal user support seem to produce lower quality plans with lower client satisfaction. Future research should continue to investigate the acceptability, feasibility, and outcome quality of digital suicide safety planning tools. Platforms, such as the Safety Planning Assistant, should be analyzed in various populations and settings to increase the generalizability of the results found in this study.
Learning Objectives:
Describe the differences in safety plan quality ratings across tested safety planning administration methods.
Compare the benefits and drawbacks of utilizing virtual safety planning methods opposed to traditional in-person safety planning.
Utilize information from the presentation for future clinical considerations for safety planning interventions in clinical settings.
