Abstract
Background
Brief Contact Interventions (BCIs) after a suicide attempt (SA) are an important element of prevention against SA and suicide. VigilanS generalizes to a whole French region a BCI combining resource cards, telephone calls and sending postcards, according to a predefined algorithm. However, a major obstacle to such real-life intervention is the loss of contact during follow-up. Here, we analyze the occurrence of loss of follow-up (LFU) and compare characteristics of patients LFU with follow-up completers.
Methods
The study concerned patients included in VigilanS over the period from 1st January 2015 to 31 December 2018, with an end of follow-up on 1st July 2019. We performed a series of descriptive analysis and logistic regressions. The outcome was the loss to follow-up, relative to the 6th month call marking the end of the follow-up; the predictive variables were the characteristics of the patient at entry and during follow-up. Age and sex were considered as adjustment variables.
Results
11879 inclusions occurred during the study period, corresponding to 10666 different patients. The mean age was 40.6 ± 15 years. More than a third were non-first suicide attempters (46.6%) and the most frequent means of suicide was by voluntary drug intoxication (83.2%). 8335 patients were LFU. After simple and multiple regression, a significant relationship with loss to follow-up was identified among non-first suicide attempters, alcohol consumers, patients having no companion on arrival at the emergency room, patients who didn’t make or receive any calls. An increased stay in hospital after a SA was a protective factor against loss of follow-up.
Conclusion
A majority of patients were lost to follow-up by the expected surveillance time of 6 months. Characteristics of lost patients will help focusing efforts to improve retention in the VigilanS program and might give insights for BCI implemented elsewhere.
Introduction
Suicide attempt (SA) is one of the major public health problems, as well as one of the most important indicators of mental health [1]. According to WHO, SA refers to all non-lethal suicidal behavior and to an act of self-intoxication, self-harm or self-injury with intent to die or not [2]. SA are nearly 20 times more common than suicide deaths [3], and history of SA is predictive of subsequent attempts and risk of death by suicide (which typically occurs after several repeated attempts) [3, 4]. The risk of completed suicide for people who have already attempted suicide is 40 to over 100 times higher than that of the general population [5, 6], and the risk of recurrence is highest immediately after discharge from hospital, with one in three patients repeating the attempt within 30 days [7]. Faced with the very high risk of suicide after a SA, many researchers have tried Brief Contact Interventions (BCI) on patients admitted to hospital after a SA [8, 9].
These BCIs include: "phone calls" focusing on patient’s mental health state and adherence to post-discharge treatment [10], “issuing a resource card” giving a phone number of a crisis management professional [11], "Sending letters" from a person who has met the suicidal patient during his/her hospital stay [12], "Sending postcards" [13], and "sms" consisting in maintaining contact through text messages [14]. Several researchers have shown the effectiveness of these BCIs in reducing suicidal behaviour. This is the case of Fleishmann et al who found a significant reduction in the number of SA in their study, based on continuous communication in combination with usual treatments [15], Bertolote et al in 2010 found an effectiveness of telephone calls on suicide mortality in their study [16], as well as Cebria et al in 2013 in Spain, showing a decrease in the number of SA reccurence related to phone calls [17]. A randomized controlled trial was realized on more than 1000 patients in 24 hospitals in France, comparing Algos, an algorithm that combined different types of BCIs into a single operational monitoring system, to treatment as usual. Results from this trial led the authors and health care authorities to scale it up to the general population. Given some equivocal results from the Algos trial [18, 19], the intervention was significantly enhanced, and relabeled VigilanS (Vigilance for the prevention of Suicide recurrence).
Created in 2014 in collaboration with the Nord-Pas de Calais hospitals, and operational since 2015, VigilanS allows to recontact any suicidal person immediately after a SA, by a team of mental health care professionals specially trained in suicidal crisis management [20]. It is a region wide BCI. According to the study by Fossi Djembi et al and Vaiva et al, VigilanS can be an effective system for SA reduction [21, 22].
A major barrier to follow-up studies, however, is the loss of contact during follow-up. In some clinical studies, it has been found that 50% or more of patients did not show up for treatment or withdrew their participation within a week [23, 24].
In studies of brief contact interventions in real world conditions, such as Lewis et al’s study of a brief intervention for weight management in primary care, patients were considered as lost to follow-up after a maximum of three unsuccessful contact attempts, using multiple means and trying at different times. According to Levi’s et al, more than this could be seen as harassment [25]. Vaiva et al also highlighted follow-up issues in their Algos study, and noted that results may be distorted by excessive lost to follow-up [18]. According to the study by Gysin-Maillart et al, the majority of follow-up losses occurred during the 1–12 month period, as opposed to the 12–25 month period, regardless of the subject group [26].
The management of patients lost to follow-up in analyses often involves sensitivity analyses, to estimate what would happen to these lost patients if they were still present until the end of the study. This is the case in the studies of Stead et al, and Lai et al, who simply considered the lost to follow-up as regular smokers in their studies of smoking cessation interventions [27, 28].
However, these studies that included the lost to follow-up in the analysis had a low risk of bias because people lost to follow-up were similar to the other participants and in small number [29, 30].
Despite our extensive literature review, including studies with detailed description of suicidal patients, we failed to find a comparison of patients lost to follow-up against those remaining till the end of the study. The analysis of these patients is particularly useful in order to understand how results based on study completers might be distorted.
Study objectives
The objective of our study was to analyze the course of follow-up in VigilanS, which is a full scale, region-wide BCI, implemented in real-life conditions–as opposed to the experimental conditions of a clinical trial. More specifically, our aims were to study the occurrence of loss of follow-up and compare characteristics of patients lost to follow-up with follow-up completers.
Method
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional committees on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2008. All procedures involving human subjects/patients were approved by the French Ministry of Health, and approved by the Comité′de Protection des Personnes of Nord-Pas-de-Calais region (Ethics Committee).
a- Patient selection
Our study was carried out on all patients included in VigilanS over the period from 1st January 2015 to 31 December 2018 in the Nord-Pas-de-Calais region. 1st July 2019 was the end of follow-up for our study. Patients who died during the follow were excluded from the analysis, as well as patients who were minors (under 18 years old).
b- Description of the VigilanS system
In VigilanS, every suicidal person leaving the hospital is given an information letter by a member of the team who took care of him or her, in which the term and the conditions of the system are described, including a right to object. A resource card is also handed out, giving a free regional telephone number to reach a monitoring unit which can be called in case of need, as well as an afterhours emergency number.
The regional monitoring unit is made up of psychologists or psychiatric nurses, specially trained. In VigilanS, an important component is outgoing and incoming calls. Systematic outgoing calls are issued by the VigilanS team, between the 10th and 21st days for non-first suicide attempters (D10-D21 call), and at the 6th month (6M interview) for all patients. D10-D21 call concerns non-first suicide attempters (having already made at least one suicidal act before entering VigilanS), because they are most at risk of having a new SA during this period.
6M call concerns all suicidal subjects (first and non-first suicide attempters). They are contacted at the end of the 6th month following discharge from the hospital, for a check-up. For first suicide attempters and for non-first suicide attempters who have not responded to the call D10-D21, it is sometimes the only direct contact with the monitoring unit. It is not uncommon to have to make 2 to 3 calls before being able to reach the patient. During this call, questions are asked to the patient, in order to assess whether or not further follow-up in VigilanS is necessary, depending on the patient’s condition.
Apart from these systematic two calls, intermediate calls are also placed. Intermediate calls are calls made on the initiative of vigilantes outside the 2 calls provided for by the program (the call at D10- D21 and the call at 6 months). Some monitoring unit plan intermediate calls when they are worried about the patient. A medical appointment scheduled for the patient can also be a reason for programming an intermediate call. It allows checking that the patient follows the post-discharge care program adequately.
Incoming calls are calls made by the patient to VigilanS. Some patients may call several times during their 6-months enrolment.
When patients are unreachable or when they are non-adherent to the post-discharge care, the team send them postcards. Calls from health professionals who follow patients, even if their volume increased significantly over time, remain scarce. Detailed description of the VigilanS intervention is published elsewhere [20].
A brief report is sent to the patient’s general practitioner and referring psychiatrist at admission and at each phone or in-person contact.
c- Data processing
Any given patient could be enrolled several times into VigilanS, in case of repeated SA with more than 6 months between them. Therefore, statistical units of analysis (SUA) could be either the SAs that triggered an inclusion in VigilanS, with possibly several records per patients, or the patients, with a unique record made of all successive inclusions when appropriate. For the current paper, SUA were patients; for those with multiple entries into VigilanS, the first one was selected, in order to compare patients at similar stages of the VigilanS intervention.
When a 6M call is missed, VigilanS further tries to get in touch with the patient through other call attempts and postcard mailings; patient’s physicians and entourage are also contacted. When a contact with the patient is successful, a 6M interview is performed. A patient is classified as lost to follow-up (LFU) if he could not be reached by a 6th months call and VigilanS has no further news since the missed call.
d- Variables study
This study outcome was the loss to follow-up, and the explanatory variables were the characteristics of the patient at first entry and during first follow-up in VigilanS. The list of variables can be found in the appendices (S1 Table).
e- Statistical analysis
The following statistical analyses were conducted:
Descriptive analysis of the data
Descriptive statistics of all patients’ characteristics were made, as well as descriptive statistics of first suicidal attempters and non-first suicidal attempters, and descriptive statistics of non-first suicidal attempters and whose D10-D21 call was successful. Quantitative variables were summarized by their mean and standard deviation; for qualitative variables, percentage was provided.
Survival analysis of 6th month follow-up
Since the 6th month follow-up interview could occur at any time after 6 months, due to VigilanS repetitive attempts to complete this interview, a survival analysis was performed, on a VigilanS record basis. This allowed estimating (1) the average delay necessary to achieve a 6-M interview, including recoveries from initial losses to follow-up; and (2) the percent of interviews achieved at any given time. The event of interest was the realization of a 6th month interview, which was right-censored, and the time-to-event was the time elapsed since the index SA.
Simple logistic regression
A Simple logistic regression was performed on all patients, then on first suicidal attempters and the non-first suicidal attempters. The aim of the simple logistic regression was to study the relationship between loss of follow-up (dependent variable) and patient characteristics (independents variables). Each variable was adjusted for age and gender, which were considered as potential confounding factors. The Chi-square test was provided for the qualitative variables, and the Student test for the qualitative variables.
Multiple logistic regression
In order to account for possible interactions between the variables, multiple logistic regression was also performed. The variables included in the multiple logistic regression were those with a P value <0.25 resulting from the simple logistic regression. Age and gender were systematically included as adjustment variables. Odds ratios (OR) confirmed the significant relationship between the dependent and independent variables, as well as their confidence intervals (95% CI) and the P-value <5%.
The software used was software R version 3. 6. 3.
Results
From 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2018, we had 13427 stays, marked by an end of follow-up on 1st July 2019. After removing the deaths during the stays and patients that were under 18 years of age, we finally had 11879 stays, corresponding to 10666 different patients (Fig 1).
Fig 1. Flow chart for patient selection in the analysis.
I- Description of patient
a) General description
The minimum age at entry into VigilanS was 18 years, the maximum was 94 years, with a mean ± SD of 40.6 ± 15 years. Most patients were women (58.7%). The departments of France studied in our study are the departments of North and Pas-de-Calais, which form the sub-region of Nord-Pas-de-Calais. Most patients were from the North Department of France (54.6%). More than ¾ of patients had an accompanying person (74.8%), and the most frequent length of hospital stay was one day (48.0%). Among non-first suicide attempters, more than half of the calls to D10-D21 were successful (52.8%). However, there were few successful calls in the 6th month (18.4%) overall. Few patients have had successful telephone contacts (34.6%), but some have had cards sent when the call was unsuccessful (39.7%). The most frequent means of suicide was by Voluntary Drug Intoxication (VDI; 83.2%), followed by phlebotomy (7.4%). (Table 1). Phlebotomy here refers to a form of venous self-mutilation by venipuncture or intravenous cannula [31, 32].
Table 1. Description of patients at first entry into VigilanS.
| Variables | All patients (N = 10666) | First suicide attempters (N = 5700) | Non-first suicide attempters (N = 4966) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 40.6±14.7 a | 39.2±15.1 a | 42.2±14.0 a |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 4404 (41.3%) | 2489 (43.7%) | 1915 (38.6%) |
| Female | 6262 (58.7%) | 3211 (56.3%) | 3051 (61.4%) |
| Geographic sub region (French “Departement”) | |||
| North | 5828 (54.6%) | 3036 (53.3%) | 2792 (56.2%) |
| Pas de Calais | 4127 (38.7%) | 2271 (39.8%) | 1856 (37.4%) |
| Other | 711 (6.7%) | 393 (6.9%) | 318 (6.4%) |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No | 5187 (48.6%) | 2938 (51.5%) | 2249 (45.3%) |
| Yes | 5479 (51.4%) | 2762 (48.5%) | 2717 (54.7%) |
| Accompanying person | |||
| No | 2688 (25.2%) | 1195 (21.0%) | 1493 (30.1%) |
| Yes | 7978 (74.8%) | 4505 (79.0%) | 3473 (69.9%) |
| Duration of hospitalization stay (days) | |||
| 0 | 1522 (14.3%) | 842 (14.8%) | 680 (13.7%) |
| 1 | 5120 (48.0%) | 2801 (49.1%) | 2319 (46.7%) |
| 2+ | 4024 (37.7%) | 2057 (36.1%) | 1967 (39.6%) |
| Outgoing D10-D21 call issued successfully? | |||
| No | - | Not concerned | 2342 (47.2%) |
| Yes | - | Not concerned | 2624 (52.8%) |
| Number of intermediate outgoing calls issued successfully | |||
| 0 | 9797 (91.9%) | 5534 (97.1%) | 4263 (85.8%) |
| 1+ | 869 (8.1%) | 166 (2.9%) | 703 (14.2%) |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient | |||
| 0 | 9134 (85.6%) | 5346 (93.8%) | 3788 (76.3%) |
| 1+ | 1532 (14.4%) | 354 (6.2%) | 1178 (23.7%) |
| Phone contact | |||
| In contact (outgoing calls issued successfully or incoming calls) | 3687 (34.6%) | 409 (7.2%) | 3278 (66.0%) |
| No contact but cards send | 4235 (39.7%) | 3201 (56.2%) | 1034 (20.8%) |
| No contacts No cards send | 2744 (25.7%) | 2090 (36.7%) | 654 (13.2%) |
| Outgoing 6M call issued successfully? | |||
| No | 8699 (81.6%) | 4680 (82.1%) | 4019 (80.9%) |
| Yes | 1967 (18.4%) | 1020 (17.9%) | 947 (19.1%) |
| Number of outgoing call to the patient’s family and friends | |||
| 0 | 9437 (88.5%) | 5386 (94.5%) | 4051 (81.6%) |
| 1+ | 1229 (11.5%) | 314 (5.5%) | 915 (18.4%) |
| Number of incoming call from the patient’s family and friends | |||
| 0 | 10290 (96.5%) | 5593 (98.1%) | 4697 (94.6%) |
| 1+ | 376 (3.5%) | 107 (1.9%) | 269 (5.4%) |
| Year | |||
| 2015 | 1807 (16.9%) | 909 (15.9%) | 898 (18.1%) |
| 2016 | 2699 (25.3%) | 1438 (25.2%) | 1261 (25.4%) |
| 2017 | 3043 (28.5%) | 1655 (29.0%) | 1388 (28.0%) |
| 2018 | 3117 (29.2%) | 1698 (29.8%) | 1419 (28.6%) |
| MEANS OF SA | |||
| VDI | |||
| No | 1791 (16.8%) | 970 (17.0%) | 821 (16.5%) |
| Yes | 8875 (83.2%) | 4730 (83.0%) | 4145 (83.5%) |
| Hanging | |||
| No | 10122 (94.9%) | 5349 (93.8%) | 4773 (96.1%) |
| Yes | 544 (5.1%) | 351 (6.2%) | 193 (3.9%) |
| Phlebotomy (Self-bloodletting) | |||
| No | 9877 (92.6%) | 5313 (93.2%) | 4564 (91.9%) |
| Yes | 789 (7.4%) | 387 (6.8%) | 402 (8.1%) |
| Others (Firearms, Lesions, Drowning, Jump) | |||
| No | 10327 (96.8%) | 5515 (96.8%) | 4812 (96.9%) |
| Yes | 339 (3.2%) | 185 (3.2%) | 154 (3.1%) |
| VARIABLES OF D10-D21 CALLS ISSUES SUCCESSFULLY | (N = 2624) | ||
| Evolution of discomfort since SA | |||
| Stable | - | - | 805 (30.7%) |
| Favorable | - | - | 1721 (65.6%) |
| Unfavorable | - | - | 98 (3.7%) |
| Need help | |||
| No | - | - | 595 (22.7%) |
| Yes | - | - | 2029 (77.3%) |
| Followed by a Psychiatrist | |||
| No | - | - | 896 (34.1%) |
| Yes | - | - | 1728 (65.9%) |
| Patient’s state at the end of the interview | |||
| Good | - | - | 1040 (39.6%) |
| Poor, not in crisis | - | - | 1488 (56.7%) |
| In crisis | - | - | 96 (3.7%) |
| Postcards sent | |||
| No | - | - | 977 (37.2%) |
| Yes | - | - | 1647 (62.8%) |
a Means ± Standard deviation
b) Description of first suicide attempters and non-first suicide attempters
There were some slight variations between the first suicide attempters and non-first suicide attempters: the non-first suicide attempters were slightly older (42 years) and more female (61.4%) than the first suicide attempters (39 years; women 56.3%). As regards alcohol consumption, this refers to those who did or did not consume alcohol during their suicide attempt. More of non-first suicide attempters consume alcohol than first suicide attempters. Most of the first suicide attempters were accompanied on arrival at the emergency room (79.0%), but fewer first suicide attempters had successful telephone contacts during the follow-up (7.2%), unlike the non-first suicide attempters (66.0%).
c) Description of D10-D21 calls
This description concerns non-first suicide attempters who were reached successfully by the D10-D21 call. The evolution of discomfort since SA was in majority favorable (65.6%). More than ¾ needed help (77.3%), and most had a follow-up by a psychiatrist during their VigilanS enrollment (65.9%). At the end of the interview, most patients were still in distress (56.7%). The sending of cards was programmed for most patients after the D10-D21 call (62.8%), in order to maintain contact (Table 1).
d) 6th month call
Fig 2 shows the survival analysis for the “6-month interview” event, according to the duration of the follow-up in months. The aim here was to assess the time it took to realize the interview at the end of the follow-up in VigilanS. It was found that most of the interviews carried out were not done at the end of the 6 months as planned, but later. The mean time for this interview was around 8 months.
Fig 2. Interview realization survival analysis at 6M as a function of follow-up time in months.
II- Analysis of lost to follow-up (LF) and non-lost to follow-up (NLF)
a) Simple logistic regression
In total, 78% of patients were LFU and 22% of patients were Non-LFU in the first stay (S1 Fig).
After adjusting for age and sex, it was found a significant relationship between lost to follow-up and suicide attempters (non-first suicide attempters), alcohol consumers, duration of hospitalization stay (at least one day in hospitals), number of outgoing calls, incoming calls and phone contacts (no calls), the year of entry into VigilanS. There was also a significant relationship between the method used for SA (VDI) and the risk of LFU. Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of general characteristics of lost to follow-up and non-lost to follow-up patients and simple age and sex-adjusted logistic regression.
| Variables | All patients | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| LFU (N = 8335) | Non-LFU (N = 2331) | P (X2) | |
| Age | 39.9±14.6 | 42.9±14.7 | |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 3503 (42.0%) | 901 (38.6%) | |
| Female | 4832 (58.0%) | 1430 (61.4%) | |
| Geographic sub region (French “Departement”) | |||
| North | 4516 (54.2%) | 148 (56.3%) | |
| Pas De Calais | 3256 (39.1%) | 1312 (37.4%) | 0.170 |
| Others * | 563 (6.7%) | 871 (6.3%) | |
| Suicide attempters | |||
| Non-first suicide attempters | 3773 (45.3%) | 1193 (51.2%) | 4*10 −5 |
| First suicide attempters * | 4562 (54.7%) | 1138 (48.8%) | |
| Alcohol consumption | |||
| No * | 4009 (48.1%) | 1178 (50.5%) | |
| Yes | 4326 (51.9%) | 1153 (49.5%) | 0.017 |
| Accompanying person | |||
| No | 2128 (25.5%) | 560 (24.0%) | |
| Yes * | 6207 (74.5%) | 1171 (76.0%) | 0.10 |
| Duration of hospitalization stay | |||
| 0 * | 1232 (14.8%) | 290 (12.4%) | |
| 1 | 4049 (48.6%) | 1071 (46.0%) | 0.001 |
| 2+ | 3054 (36.6%) | 970 (41.6%) | |
| Number of outgoing call issued succesfully | |||
| 0 | 7788 (93.4%) | 2009 (86.2%) | <2*10 −16 |
| 1+ * | 547 (6.6%) | 322 (13.8%) | |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient | |||
| 0 | 7365 (88.4%) | 1769 (75.9%) | |
| 1+ * | 970 (11.6%) | 562 (24.1%) | <2*10 −16 |
| No phone contacts? | |||
| In contact (outgoing calls issued successfully or incoming calls) * | 2580 (31.0%) | 1107 (47.5%) | |
| No contact but cards send | 3476 (41.7%) | 759 (32.6%) | <2*10 −16 |
| No contacts No cards send | 2279 (27.3%) | 465 (19.9%) | |
| Number of outgoing calls to the patient’s family and friends | |||
| 0 | 7465 (89.6%) | 1972 (84.6%) | |
| 1+ * | 870 (10.4%) | 359 (15.4%) | 9*10 −11 |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient’s family and friends | |||
| 0 | 8083 (97.0%) | 2207 (94.7%) | |
| 1+ * | 252 (3.0%) | 124 (5.3%) | 9*10 −7 |
| Year | |||
| 2015 * | 1170 (14.0%) | 637 (27.3%) | |
| 2016 | 1908 (22.9%) | 791 (33.9%) | <2*10 −16 |
| 2017 | 2690 (32.3%) | 353 (15.2%) | |
| 2018 | 2567 (30.8%) | 550 (23.6%) | |
| MEANS OF SA | |||
| VDI | |||
| No * | 1446 (17.4%) | 345 (14.8%) | |
| Yes | 6889 (82.6%) | 1986 (85.2%) | 0.023 |
| Hanging | |||
| No * | 7895 (94.7%) | 2227 (95.5%) | |
| Yes | 440 (5.3%) | 104 (4.5%) | 0.224 |
| Phlebotomy (Self-bloodletting) | |||
| No * | 7724 (92.7%) | 2153 (92.4%) | |
| Yes | 611 (7.3%) | 178 (7.6%) | 0.294 |
| Others (Firearms, Lesions, Drowning, Jump) | |||
| No * | 8067 (96.8%) | 2260 (97.0%) | |
| Yes | 268 (3.2%) | 71 (3.0%) | 0.923 |
However, certain variables are significant among first suicide attempters but not among non-first suicide attempters, and inversely. This is the case, for example, with variables such as the non-presence of a companion on arrival at the emergency room and the number of calls made to friends and family (no calls), which are significant for first suicide attempters and non-significant for non-first suicide attempters. Inversely, variables such as department, alcohol and duration of hospitalization stay are significant in the case of non-first suicide attempters and non-significant in the case of first suicide attempters Table 3.
Table 3. Comparison of general characteristics of lost to follow-up and non-lost to follow-up patients and simple age and sex-adjusted logistic regression.
| Variables | First suicide attempters | Non-first suicide attempters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LFU (N = 4562) | Non-LFU (N = 1138) | P (X2) | LFU (N = 3773) | Non-LFU (N = 1193) | P (X2) | |
| AGE | 38.5±14.9 | 42.0±15.4 | 41.7±14.0 | 43.7±13.9 | ||
| SEX | ||||||
| Male | 2025 (44.4%) | 464 (40.8%) | 1478 (39.2%) | 437 (36.6%) | ||
| Female | 2537 (55.6%) | 674 (59.2%) | 2295 (60.8%) | 756 (63.4%) | ||
| Geographic sub region (French “Departement”) | ||||||
| North | 2435 (53.4%) | 601 (52.8%) | 2081 (55.1%) | 711 (59.6%) | ||
| Pas De Calais | 1805 (39.6%) | 466 (41.0%) | 0.574 | 1451 (38.5%) | 405 (34.0%) | 0.018 |
| Others * | 322 (7.0%) | 71 (6.2%) | 241 (6.4%) | 77 (6.4%) | ||
| Alcohol consumption | ||||||
| No * | 2330 (51.1%) | 608 (53.4%) | 1679 (44.5%) | 570 (47.8%) | ||
| Yes | 2232 (48.9%) | 530 (46.6%) | 0.087 | 2094 (55.5%) | 623 (52.2%) | 0.041 |
| Accompanying person | ||||||
| No | 981 (21.5%) | 214 (18.8%) | 1147 (30.4%) | 346 (29.0%) | ||
| Yes * | 3581 (78.5%) | 924 (81.2%) | 0.027 | 2626 (69.6%) | 847 (71.0%) | 0.384 |
| Duration of hospitalization stay (days) | ||||||
| 0 * | 678 (14.9%) | 164 (14.4%) | 554 (14.7%) | 126 (10.5%) | ||
| 1 | 2282 (50.0%) | 519 (45.6%) | 0.051 | 1767 (46.8%) | 552 (46.3%) | 9*10 −4 |
| 2+ | 1602 (35.1%) | 455 (40.0%) | 1452 (38.5%) | 515 (43.2%) | ||
| Number of outgoing call issued | ||||||
| 0 | 4471 (98.0%) | 1063 (93.4%) | 3317 (87.9%) | 946 (79.3%) | ||
| 1+ * | 91 (2.0%) | 75 (6.6%) | 2*10 −12 | 456 (12.1%) | 247 (20.7%) | 4*10 −12 |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient | ||||||
| 0 | 4391 (96.3%) | 955 (83.9%) | 2974 (78.8%) | 814 (68.2%) | ||
| 1+ * | 171 (3.7%) | 183 (16.1%) | <2*10 −16 | 799 (21.2%) | 379 (31.8%) | 7*10 −12 |
| No phone contacts? | ||||||
| In contact (outgoing calls issued successfully or incoming calls) * | 2620 (57.4%) | 581 (51.0%) | 856 (22.7%) | 178 (14.9%) | ||
| No contact but cards send | 1734 (38.0%) | 356 (31.3%) | <2*10 −16 | 545 (14.4%) | 109 (9.1%) | 2*10 −14 |
| No contacts No cards send | 208 (4.6%) | 201 (17.7%) | 2372 (62.9%) | 906 (76.0%) | ||
| Number of outgoing calls to the patient’s family and friends | ||||||
| 0 | 4373 (95.9%) | 1013 (89.0%) | 3092 (81.9%) | 959 (80.4%) | ||
| 1+ * | 189 (4.1%) | 125 (11.0%) | <2*10 −16 | 681 (18.1%) | 234 (19.6%) | 0.174 |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient’s family and friends | ||||||
| 0 | 4492 (98.5%) | 1101 (96.7%) | 3591 (95.2%) | 1106 (92.7%) | ||
| 1+ * | 70 (1.5%) | 37 (3.3%) | 8*10 −4 | 182 (4.8%) | 87 (7.3%) | 0.001 |
| Year | ||||||
| 2015 * | 622 (13.6%) | 287 (25.2%) | 548 (14.5%) | 350 (29.4%) | ||
| 2016 | 1128 (24.7%) | 310 (27.2%) | <2*10 −16 | 780 (20.7%) | 481 (40.3%) | <2*10 −16 |
| 2017 | 1480 (32.5%) | 175 (15.4%) | 1210 (32.1%) | 178 (14.9%) | ||
| 2018 | 1332 (29.2%) | 366 (32.2%) | 1235 (32.7%) | 184 (15.4%) | ||
| MEANS OF SA | ||||||
| VDI | ||||||
| No * | 803 (17.6%) | 167 (14.7%) | 643 (17.0%) | 178 (14.9%) | ||
| Yes | 3759 (82.4%) | 971 (85.3%) | 0.058 | 3130 (83.0%) | 1015 (85.1%) | 0.175 |
| Hanging | ||||||
| No * | 4277 (93.7%) | 1072 (94.2%) | 3618 (95.9%) | 1155 (96.8%) | ||
| Yes | 285 (6.3%) | 66 (5.8%) | 0.636 | 155 (4.1%) | 38 (3.2%) | 0.268 |
| Phlebotomy (Self-bloodletting) | ||||||
| No * | 4243 (93.0%) | 1070 (94.0%) | 3481 (92.3%) | 1083 (90.8%) | ||
| Yes | 319 (7.0%) | 68 (6.0%) | 0.462 | 292 (7.7%) | 110 (9.2%) | 0.059 |
| Others (Firearms, Lesions, Drowning, Jump) | ||||||
| No * | 4413 (96.7%) | 1102 (96.8%) | 3654 (96.8%) | 1158 (97.1%) | ||
| Yes | 149 (3.3%) | 36 (3.2%) | 0.924 | 119 (3.2%) | 35 (2.9%) | 0.817 |
| VARIABLES OF D10-D21 CALLS ISSUES SUCCESSFULLY | (LFU = 1891) | (Non-LFU = 733) | ||||
| Evolution of discomfort since SA | ||||||
| Stable | - | - | 570 (30.1%) | 235 (32.1%) | ||
| Favorable * | - | - | 1257 (66.5%) | 464 (63.3%) | 0.189 | |
| Unfavorable | - | - | 64 (3.4%) | 34 (4.6%) | ||
| Need help | ||||||
| No * | - | - | 409 (21.6%) | 186 (25.4%) | ||
| Yes | - | - | 1482 (78.4%) | 547 (74.6%) | 0.034 | |
| Followed by a Psychiatrist | ||||||
| No * | - | - | 653 (34.5%) | 243 (33.1%) | ||
| Yes | - | - | 1238 (65.5%) | 490 (66.9%) | 0.529 | |
| Patient’s state at the end of the interview | ||||||
| Good * | - | - | 699 (3.0%) | 341 (46.5%) | ||
| Poor, not in crisis | - | - | 1136 (60.0%) | 352 (48.0%) | 2*10 −8 | |
| In crisis | - | - | 56 (37.0%) | 40 (5.5%) | ||
| Postcards sent | ||||||
| No * | - | - | 676 (35.7%) | 301 (41.1%) | ||
| Yes | - | - | 1215 (64.3%) | 432 (58.9%) | 0.007 | |
From data collected at the D10-D21 call, a significant relationship was found between lost to follow-up and the need of help, the patient’s state at the end of the interview, and postcards sent after the interview Table 3.
b) Multiple logistic regression
Multiple regression showed that patients at risk of being lost to follow-up in general were non-first suicide attempters (OR = 1.27), alcohol consumers (OR = 1.10), patients having non-presence of a companion on arrival at the emergency room (OR = 1.13), and patients who didn’t make or receive any calls. Those whose phone contact was unsuccessful but who still had cards sent out, are more likely to be lost to follow-up than those who had at least one successful telephone contact (OR = 1.47). On the other hand, those who have no contact and no sent cards are even more at risk of being lost to follow-up (OR = 1.58) Table 4.
Table 4. Multiple regression of LFU and non-LFU patients.
| All patients | First suicide attempters | Non-first suicide attempters | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | OR | 95% IC | P (OR) | OR | 95% IC | P (OR) | OR | 95% IC | P (OR) |
| Suicide attempters “Non-first suicide attempters” | 1.27 | 1.12–1.45 | <0.001 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Alcohol consumption “Yes” | 1.10 | 1.00–1.22 | 0.049 | 1.08 | 0.94–1.24 | >0.1 | 1.12 | 0.97–1.29 | >0.1 |
| Accompanying “No” | 1.13 | 10.0–1.26 | 0.038 | 1.20 | 1.01–1.43 | 0.043 | - | - | - |
| Duration of hospitalization stay | |||||||||
| “1 day” | 0.95 | 0.82–1.11 | >0.1 | 1.0 | 0.87–1.32 | >0.1 | 0.79 | 0.62–0.99 | 0.043 |
| “2 days” | 0.83 | 0.71–0.96 | 0.016 | 0.96 | 0.77–1.19 | >0.1 | 0.67 | 0.53–0.85 | <0.001 |
| Number of outgoing intermediate call issued successfully “0 call” | 1.37 | 1.15–1.63 | <0.001 | 0.93 | 0.58–1.48 | >0.1 | 1.51 | 1.24–1.84 | <0.001 |
| Number of incoming intermediates calls “0 call” | 1.70 | 1.46–1.99 | <0.001 | 2.60 | 1.30–5.33 | 0.008 | 1.47 | 1.23–1.76 | <0.001 |
| No Phone contacts? | |||||||||
| “No contact but cards send” | 1.47 | 1.24–1.73 | <0.001 | 1.69 | 0.78–3.58 | >0.1 | 1.22 | 0.99–1.50 | 0.057 |
| “No contact No cards send” | 1.58 | 1.32–1.89 | <0.001 | 1.83 | 0.84–3.88 | >0.1 | 1.24 | 0.97–1.59 | 0.084 |
| Number of outgoing calls to the patient’s family and friends “0 call” | 1.28 | 1.10–1.48 | 0.001 | 2.11 | 1.63–2.72 | <0.001 | 1.02 | 0.85–1.23 | >0.1 |
| Number of incoming calls from the patient’s family and friends “0 call” | 1.36 | 1.07–1.73 | 0.011 | 1.24 | 0.79–1.94 | >0.1 | 1.48 | 1.10–1.98 | 9*10−3 |
| Years | |||||||||
| “2016” | 1.36 | 1.19–1.55 | <0.001 | 1.86 | 1.53–2.59 | <0.001 | 1.00 | 0.83–1.20 | >0.1 |
| “2017” | 4.40 | 3.78–5.12 | <0.001 | 4.12 | 3.32–5.13 | <0.001 | 4.51 | 3.65–5.60 | <0.001 |
| “2018” | 2.68 | 2.33–3.08 | <0.001 | 1.89 | 1.57–2.28 | <0.001 | 4.27 | 3.45–5.29 | <0.001 |
| VDI “Yes” | 0.91 | 0.78–1.05 | >0.1 | 0.84 | 0.69–1.01 | 0.074 | 0.85 | 0.68–1.06 | >0.1 |
| Hanging “Yes” | 1.08 | 0.84–1.40 | >0.1 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Phlebotomy (Self-bloodletting) “Yes” | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0.74 | 0.56–0.99 | 0.041 |
Compared to 2015, the year in which VigilanS started, 2017 was the year in which the risk of being lost to follow up of was very high (OR = 4.40), followed by 2018 (OR = 2.68). Patients who spend 2 days and more in hospital were less likely to be lost to follow-up (OR = 0.83), opposed to those discharged on the same day. Table 4.
In non-first suicide attempters, it was found that patients who attempted suicide by phlebotomy were less likely to be lost to follow-up (OR = 0.74) Table 4. The variables resulting from the D10-D21 call were not significant.
Discussion
Main findings and comparison with findings from other studies
The interest and the originality of this study is to focus on a population that is still poorly investigated in the literature. To our knowledge, there is little research on post SA interventions implemented in real life conditions on a large population: none of them focus on the loss of follow-up.
Some of our results are consistent with the socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of suicidal patients described in previously published studies; in particular, significantly more women attempt suicide than men [33–35], and the operating mode by VDI [33, 36–40]. The proportion of patients with a history of one or more SA at inclusion in VigilanS was approximately 47%. This indicates that our sample had a relatively high proportion of patients with an increased risk of suicide at the first stay.
We have identified that non-primary-suicide attempters are more likely to be lost to follow-up. According to the literature, patients with a history of previous suicide attempts have a higher risk of fatal suicidal act during their next attempt [3]. This may explain the loss of follow-up in this group of patients. Other studies have pointed out that people with a history of suicide are more likely to have ineffective coping strategies such as avoidance, emotional adjustment, self-accusation, and a preference to solve problems on their own [41, 42]. It is possible that these behaviors may explain the loss of follow-up of multi-suicidal patients during follow-up.
According to several studies, alcohol use is an important factor in suicidal risk. Almost a quarter of suicide deaths are directly attributable to alcohol [43], which is often used during suicide attempts (both non-lethal and fatal) [44–46]. We also found that this factor (alcohol consumption) should also be taken into account in patient follow-up, as our multivariate analysis shows compared to those who do not consume alcohol. We also identified that patients who didn’t have a companion on arrival at the emergency room are more likely to be lost than patients having a companion on arrival at the emergency room. According to Luoma et al, the suicide rate for single persons is twice as high as that for married persons and four to five times higher for separated, divorced and widowed persons [47]. Having someone close to you can also be considered an important factor in reducing the LFU.
In terms of length of hospitalization, patients spent an average of one day in hospital. However, the longer the hospital stay, the lower the risk of losing follow-up. Patients who spent 2 or more days in hospital are about 15% less likely to be lost to follow-up in all subjects and about 50% less likely to be loss to follow-up in non-first suicide attempters, in contrast to those who left the hospital on the same day. According to Pushpakumara et al, a longer hospital stay could have an effect on reducing suicidal recurrence by providing a safer environment during this high-risk post-attempted period [48], and thus lead the patient to continue the previous day’s suicide project until completion.
Regarding phone calls, incoming intermediate calls are usually long calls from patients in need of help and/or in need of a listening ear, and outgoing calls are often for certain interventions, or for patients who could not be reached on previous calls. Regardless of the type of incoming or outgoing call, there is a risk of suicide among these patients, which may explain the risk of loss to follow-up during the monitoring.
Concerning the 6th month call, our study showed that the call planned at 6th month marking the end of the follow-up in VigilanS, often did not occur at 6th month as planned. They were carried out later, with an average time of about 8 months.
The year 2015 is the year when there is less risk of loss of follow-up, unlike other years. The year 2015 is the starting year of VigilanS, and it can be seen that as the years progress, there is a great increase in the burden on VigilanS staff, which has surely made contact management and follow-up difficult, and eventually subsequent loss of follow-up. However, the positive point in this study is that there is a decrease in the risk of losing follow-up after a peak in 2017. This shows improvement of the system over time.
The method of attempted suicide by phlebotomy has been identified as a protective factor in multi-suicidal patients. Phlebotomy, also known as a self-mutilation, is defined as the deliberate and direct destruction or alteration of a vein without conscious suicidal intent, by draining oneself of one’s own blood through a venipuncture or intravenous cannula [31, 32]. Some research suggests that self-harm is a common reaction to social isolation and fear [49, 50]. According to Favazza et al, episodes of self-harm are often followed by feelings of disappointment or abandonment [51], feelings of anger, upset, or loneliness [52]. The most frequently cited reason for antecedent self-harm is psychological distress, between 40% [53] and 64% of cases [54]. This shows the importance of maintaining contact after a suicide attempt, particularly in multi-suicidal patients, through the telephone call at D10-D21, and may explain this protective role against loss of follow-up in these self-harming patients.
Strengths and weaknesses
Loss of follow-up is one of the difficulties encountered in many research studies. Faced with this difficulty, it is important to know what characterizes patients lost to follow-up. Our study is the only one that compares the characteristics of suicidal patients lost to follow-up with that of patients not lost to follow-up patients, all of whom are monitored by a post attempt monitoring system. One problem of studies with follow-up is missing data. Most patients did not complete their 6-month follow-up, and therefore data not collected during follow-up may bias the results of our analyses, such as the estimate of average time call at 6 months.
In addition, our study was based only on the hospital environment, and a part of SA in the population does not lead to hospitalization. In France, however the proportion of non-hospitalized SA is fairly low, around 8%, but our results cannot be generalized to the whole population [55]. Nevertheless, the quality of our sample is extremely close to the reality of the clinical field, since it is an exhaustive sample of patients in real life conditions.
Our work has important implications for preventive interventions, in order to improve the follow-up strategy for patients leaving hospital after a SA.
To conclude, the presence of substantial loss to follow-up calls for special attention towards non-first suicide attempters, alcohol consumers, patients who didn’t have a companion on arrival at the emergency room, patients with unsuccessful or who didn’t make the calls. One of an important finding is the length of hospitalization, which has an important clinical implication in the LFU, by prolonging the hospital stay with one day or more. The results of our study provide us with a valuable insight into the profiles of patients likely to be incompletely monitored, which is important for suicide prevention in general.
Supporting information
(DOCX)
a NC: Not concerned by stay. b Of the 8335 patients lost to follow-up during the first stay, 308 patients had a suicide reattempt and were followed up a second time in VigilanS, of which 284 patients were lost to follow-up and 24 were followed up until the end of the monitoring.
(TIF)
(CSV)
(CSV)
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the contribution of all investigators who contributed to our study, as well as the Fondation de France and the Faculty of Medicine of Paris-Saclay University.
Abbreviations
- BCI
Brief Contact Interventions
- D10-D21
Call between the 10th and 21st days after SA
- LFU
lost to follow-up
- OR
Odds Ratio
- P
P-value
- SA
Suicide Attempt
- SD
Standard Deviation
- SUA
statistical units of analysis
- VDI
Voluntary Drug Intoxication
- WHO
World Health Organization
Data Availability
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding Statement
LDF was supported by a fellowship from the Faculty of Medicine of Paris-Saclay University. Publication fees for this paper were supported by Fondation de France, grant RAF21041LLA. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
- 1.Bursztein Lipsicas C, Mäkinen IH, Apter A, De Leo D, Kerkhof A, Lönnqvist J, et al. Attempted suicide among immigrants in European countries: an international perspective. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol [Internet]. févr 2012. [cité 25 mai 2020];47(2):241–51. Disponible sur: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00127-010-0336-6. doi: 10.1007/s00127-010-0336-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Observatoire National du Suicide (ONS). Suicide: Etat des lieux des connaissances et perspectives de la recherche [Internet]. France: Observatoire National du Suicide (ONS); 2014 [cité 5 avr 2018]. 221 p. Disponible sur: http://solidarites-sante.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/rapport_ONS_2014.pdf.
- 3.World Health Organization (WHO), éditeur. Preventing suicide: a global imperative. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2014. 89 p.
- 4.Wasserman D, Rihmer Z, Rujescu D, Sarchiapone M, Sokolowski M, Titelman D, et al. The European Psychiatric Association (EPA) guidance on suicide treatment and prevention. Eur Psychiatry [Internet]. févr 2012. [cité 6 avr 2018];27(2):129–41. Disponible sur: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0924933811001088. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Hawton K, Zahl D, Weatherall R. Suicide following deliberate self-harm: long-term follow-up of patients who presented to a general hospital. Br J Psychiatry [Internet]. juin 2003. [cité 25 mai 2020];182(6):537–42. Disponible sur: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007125000229061/type/journal_article. doi: 10.1192/bjp.182.6.537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Runeson BS. Suicide after parasuicide. BMJ [Internet]. 16 nov 2002. [cité 6 avr 2018];325(7373):1125a–126. Disponible sur: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/doi/10.1136/bmj.325.7373.1125/a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Kapur N, Cooper J, King-Hele S, Webb R, Lawlor M, Rodway C, et al. The Repetition of Suicidal Behavior: A Multicenter Cohort Study. J Clin Psychiatry [Internet]. 15 oct 2006. [cité 25 mai 2020];67(10):1599–609. Disponible sur: http://article.psychiatrist.com/?ContentType=START&ID=10002772. doi: 10.4088/jcp.v67n1016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Milner AJ, Carter G, Pirkis J, Robinson J, Spittal MJ. Letters, green cards, telephone calls and postcards: Systematic and meta-analytic review of brief contact interventions for reducing self-harm, suicide attempts and suicide. Br J Psychiatry [Internet]. mars 2015. [cité 5 avr 2018];206(03):184–90. Disponible sur: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007125000237902/type/journal_article. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.114.147819 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Inagaki M, Kawashima Y, Kawanishi C, Yonemoto N, Sugimoto T, Furuno T, et al. Interventions to prevent repeat suicidal behavior in patients admitted to an emergency department for a suicide attempt: A meta-analysis. J Affect Disord [Internet]. avr 2015. [cité 5 avr 2018];175:66–78. Disponible sur: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032714008349. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2014.12.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Vaiva G, Vaiva G, Ducrocq F, Meyer P, Mathieu D, Philippe A, et al. Effect of telephone contact on further suicide attempts in patients discharged from an emergency department: randomised controlled study. BMJ. 27 mai 2006;332(7552):1241–5. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7552.1241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Evans J, Evans M, Morgan HG, Hayward A, Gunnell D. Crisis card following self-harm: 12-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Br J Psychiatry [Internet]. août 2005. [cité 5 avr 2018];187(02):186–7. Disponible sur: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007125000167273/type/journal_article. doi: 10.1192/bjp.187.2.186 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Motto JA, Bostrom AG. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Postcrisis Suicide Prevention. Psychiatr Serv [Internet]. juin 2001. [cité 6 avr 2018];52(6):828–33. Disponible sur: http://psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ps.52.6.828 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Carter GL, Clover K, Whyte IM, Dawson AH, Este CD. Postcards from the EDge project: randomised controlled trial of an intervention using postcards to reduce repetition of hospital treated deliberate self poisoning. BMJ [Internet]. 8 oct 2005. [cité 5 avr 2018];331(7520):805. Disponible sur: http://www.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmj.38579.455266.E0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Berrouiguet S, Alavi Z, Vaiva G, Courtet P, Baca-García E, Vidailhet P, et al. SIAM (Suicide intervention assisted by messages): the development of a post-acute crisis text messaging outreach for suicide prevention. BMC Psychiatry. déc 2014;14(1). doi: 10.1186/s12888-014-0294-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Fleischmann A. Effectiveness of brief intervention and contact for suicide attempters: a randomized controlled trial in five countries. Bull World Health Organ [Internet]. 1 sept 2008. [cité 5 avr 2018];86(9):703–9. Disponible sur: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/9/07-046995.pdf. doi: 10.2471/blt.07.046995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Bertolote JM, De Leo D. Global Suicide Mortality Rates–A Light at the End of the Tunnel? Crisis [Internet]. sept 2012. [cité 21 nov 2018];33(5):249–53. Disponible sur: https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/0227-5910/a000180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Cebrià AI, Parra I, Pàmias M, Escayola A, García-Parés G, Puntí J, et al. Effectiveness of a telephone management programme for patients discharged from an emergency department after a suicide attempt: Controlled study in a Spanish population. J Affect Disord [Internet]. mai 2013. [cité 15 nov 2018];147(1–3):269–76. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032712007690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vaiva G, Walter M, Al Arab AS, Courtet P, Bellivier F, Demarty AL, et al. ALGOS: the development of a randomized controlled trial testing a case management algorithm designed to reduce suicide risk among suicide attempters. BMC Psychiatry. déc 2011;11(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-244X-11-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Messiah A, Notredame C-E, Demarty A-L, Duhem S, Vaiva G, les investigateurs d’Algos. Combining green cards, telephone calls and postcards into an intervention algorithm to reduce suicide reattempt (AlgoS): post-hoc analyses of an inconclusive randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2019;in print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Duhem S, Berrouiguet S, Debien C, Ducrocq F, Demarty AL, Messiah A, et al. Combining brief contact interventions (BCI) into a decision-making algorithm to reduce suicide reattempt: the VigilanS study protocol. BMJ Open [Internet]. oct 2018. [cité 21 nov 2018];8(10):e022762. Disponible sur: http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Fossi Djembi L, Vaiva G, Debien C, Duhem S, Demarty A-L, Koudou Y-A, et al. Changes in the number of suicide re-attempts in a French region since the inception of VigilanS, a regionwide program combining brief contact interventions (BCI). BMC Psychiatry [Internet]. déc 2020. [cité 3 sept 2020];20(1):26. Disponible sur: https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-020-2443-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Guillaume Vaiva. Prévention du suicide: le dispositif innovant VigilanS. In: L’encéphale. 2019. p. S1–46.
- 23.Granboulan V, Roudot-Thoraval F, Lemerle S, Alvin P. Predictive factors of post-discharge follow-up care among adolescent suicide attempters. Acta Psychiatr Scand [Internet]. juill 2001. [cité 26 mai 2020];104(1):31–6. Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2001.00297.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Monti K, Cedereke M, Öjehagen A. Treatment Attendance and Suicidal Behavior 1 Month and 3 Months After a Suicide Attempt: A Comparison Between Two Samples. Arch Suicide Res [Internet]. avr 2003. [cité 26 mai 2020];7(2):167–74. Disponible sur: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13811110301581. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Lewis A, Jolly K, Adab P, Daley A, Farley A, Jebb S, et al. A brief intervention for weight management in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials [Internet]. 2013. [cité 25 sept 2020];14(1):393. Disponible sur: http://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6215-14-393. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-393 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Gysin-Maillart A, Schwab S, Soravia L, Megert M, Michel K. A Novel Brief Therapy for Patients Who Attempt Suicide: A 24-months Follow-Up Randomized Controlled Study of the Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP). Tsai AC, éditeur. PLOS Med [Internet]. 1 mars 2016. [cité 5 avr 2018];13(3):e1001968. Disponible sur: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001968. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001968 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Stead LF, Hartmann-Boyce J, Perera R, Lancaster T. Telephone counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 12 août 2013. [cité 25 sept 2020]; Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD002850.pub3 23934971 [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lindson N, Thompson TP, Ferrey A, Lambert JD, Aveyard P. Motivational interviewing for smoking cessation. Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 31 juill 2019. [cité 24 mars 2021]; Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD006936.pub4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Barnes J, McRobbie H, Dong CY, Walker N, Hartmann-Boyce J. Hypnotherapy for smoking cessation. Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 14 juin 2019. [cité 25 sept 2020]; Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD001008.pub3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Lancaster T, Stead LF. Individual behavioural counselling for smoking cessation. Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group, éditeur. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 31 mars 2017. [cité 25 sept 2020]; Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD001292.pub3. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Dursun OB, Varol Tas F, Guvenir T. Self-Bloodletting: An Unusual Form of Self-Mutilation in Adolescence. Eurasian J Med [Internet]. 1 août 2010. [cité 2 nov 2021];42(2):98–9. Disponible sur: http://www.eajm.org/text.php3?id=352. doi: 10.5152/eajm.2010.27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.National Association of Phlebotomists. 28 déc 2014 [cité 2 nov 2021]; Disponible sur: https://web.archive.org/web/20141228205159/http://www.phlebotomy.org/faq.
- 33.Giraud P, Fortanier C, Fabre G, Ghariani J, Guillermain Y, Rouviere N, et al. Tentatives de suicide: étude descriptive d’une cohorte de 517 adolescents de moins de 15 ans et 3 mois. Arch Pédiatrie [Internet]. juin 2013. [cité 12 juin 2020];20(6):608–15. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0929693X13002406. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Rahmani F, Salmasi S, Rahmani F, Bird J, Asghari E, Robai N, et al. Domestic violence and suicide attempts among married women: A case–control study. J Clin Nurs [Internet]. sept 2019. [cité 12 juin 2020];28(17–18):3252–61. Disponible sur: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocn.14901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Monnin J, Thiemard E, Vandel P, Nicolier M, Tio G, Courtet P, et al. Sociodemographic and psychopathological risk factors in repeated suicide attempts: Gender differences in a prospective study. J Affect Disord [Internet]. janv 2012. [cité 12 juin 2020];136(1–2):35–43. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0165032711005271. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Alami A, Nejatian M, Lael-Monfared E, Jafari A. Epidemiology of Suicide/Suicide Attempt and Its Association with Individual, Family, and Social Factors in Eastern Part of Iran: A Historical Cohort Study. Iran J Public Health [Internet]. 7 juin 2020. [cité 12 juin 2020]; Disponible sur: https://publish.kne-publishing.com/index.php/ijph/article/view/2987. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Bhatt M, Perera S, Zielinski L, Eisen RB, Yeung S, El-Sheikh W, et al. Profile of suicide attempts and risk factors among psychiatric patients: A case-control study. Sasayama D, éditeur. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 22 févr 2018. [cité 12 juin 2020];13(2):e0192998. Disponible sur: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Barrimi M, Zaidi K, Hlal H, Kettani N, Khelafa S, Rammouz I, et al. Tentatives de suicides violentes à l’hôpital général de Fès (Maroc): évaluation et prise en charge en psychiatrie de liaison. Étude prospective sur six mois. LÉvolution Psychiatr [Internet]. oct 2014. [cité 12 juin 2020];79(4):619–28. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0014385513000947. [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kim SM, Lee H-S. Characteristics of Inpatients Who Survive Suicide Attempts. Osong Public Health Res Perspect [Internet]. 28 févr 2019. [cité 12 juin 2020];10(1):32–8. Disponible sur: http://kcdcphrp.org/journal/view.html?doi=10.24171/j.phrp.2019.10.1.07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Chan-Chee C. Les hospitalisations pour tentative de suicide dans les établissements de soins de courte durée: évolution entre 2008 et 2017. Bull Epidémiol Hebd. 2019;(3–4):48–54. http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/beh/2019/3-4/2019_3-4_2.html.
- 41.McMahon EM, Corcoran P, McAuliffe C, Keeley H, Perry IJ, Arensman E. Mediating Effects of Coping Style on Associations Between Mental Health Factors and Self-Harm Among Adolescents. Crisis [Internet]. 1 juill 2013. [cité 12 juin 2020];34(4):242–50. Disponible sur: https://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/10.1027/0227-5910/a000188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Svensson T, Inoue M, Charvat H, Sawada N, Iwasaki M, Sasazuki S, et al. Coping behaviors and suicide in the middle-aged and older Japanese general population: the Japan Public Health Center-based Prospective Study. Ann Epidemiol [Internet]. mars 2014. [cité 12 juin 2020];24(3):199–205. Disponible sur: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1047279713004729. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2013.12.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Alcohol Related Disease Impact (ARDI) application, 2013. Available at www.cdc.gov/ARDI.
- 44.Kaplan MS, Giesbrecht N, Caetano R, Conner KR, Huguet N, McFarland BH, et al. Acute Alcohol Consumption as a Contributing Factor to Suicidal Behavior. Am J Public Health [Internet]. sept 2013. [cité 26 mai 2020];103(9):e2–3. Disponible sur: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301422 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Bagge CL, Lee H-J, Schumacher JA, Gratz KL, Krull JL, Holloman G. Alcohol as an Acute Risk Factor for Recent Suicide Attempts: A Case-Crossover Analysis. J Stud Alcohol Drugs [Internet]. juill 2013. [cité 26 mai 2020];74(4):552–8. Disponible sur: http://www.jsad.com/doi/10.15288/jsad.2013.74.552 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Borges G, Bagge CL, Cherpitel CJ, Conner KR, Orozco R, Rossow I. A meta-analysis of acute use of alcohol and the risk of suicide attempt. Psychol Med [Internet]. avr 2017. [cité 26 mai 2020];47(5):949–57. Disponible sur: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0033291716002841/type/journal_article. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002841 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Luoma JB, Pearson JL. Suicide and Marital Status in the United States, 1991–1996: Is Widowhood a Risk Factor? Am J Public Health [Internet]. sept 2002. [cité 12 juin 2020];92(9):1518–22. Disponible sur: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.92.9.1518 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Pushpakumara PHGJ, Thennakoon SUB, Rajapakse TN, Abeysinghe R, Dawson AH. A prospective study of repetition of self-harm following deliberate self-poisoning in rural Sri Lanka. PloS One. 2019;14(2):e0199486. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Andover MS, Pepper CM, Ryabchenko KA, Orrico EG, Gibb BE. Self-Mutilation and Symptoms of Depression, Anxiety, and Borderline Personality Disorder. Suicide Life Threat Behav [Internet]. oct 2005. [cité 2 déc 2020];35(5):581–91. Disponible sur: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1521/suli.2005.35.5.581 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Akyuz G, Sar V, Kugu N, Doğan O. Reported childhood trauma, attempted suicide and self-mutilative behavior among women in the general population. Eur Psychiatry [Internet]. mai 2005. [cité 2 déc 2020];20(3):268–73. Disponible sur: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0924933800067183/type/journal_article. doi: 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2005.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Favazza AR. Why Patients Mutilate Themselves. Psychiatr Serv [Internet]. févr 1989. [cité 2 déc 2020];40(2):137–45. Disponible sur: http://psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ps.40.2.137 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 52.Weber MT. Triggers for self-abuse: a qualitative study. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. juin 2002;16(3):118–24. doi: 10.1053/apnu.2002.32948 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Mannion A. Self-harm in a dangerous and severely personality disordered population. J Forensic Psychiatry Psychol [Internet]. avr 2009. [cité 19 oct 2021];20(2):322–31. Disponible sur: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14789940802377106. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Beasley S. Deliberate self harm in medium security. Nurs Manag Harrow Lond Engl 1994. janv 1999;6(8):29–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 55.Léon C, Chan-Chee C, du Roscoät E, et le groupe Baromètre de Santé publique France 2017. Baromètre de Santé publique France 2017: tentatives de suicide et pensées suicidaires chez les 18–75 ans en France. Bull Epidémiol Hebd. 2019; (3–4):38–47. http://invs.santepubliquefrance.fr/beh/2019/3-4/2019_3–4_1.html.
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
(DOCX)
a NC: Not concerned by stay. b Of the 8335 patients lost to follow-up during the first stay, 308 patients had a suicide reattempt and were followed up a second time in VigilanS, of which 284 patients were lost to follow-up and 24 were followed up until the end of the monitoring.
(TIF)
(CSV)
(CSV)
Data Availability Statement
All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.