Screening and Intervention for Suicide Prevention: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the ED-SAFE Interventions

Laura J. Dunlap · Stephen Orme · Gary A. Zarkin · Sarah A. Arias · Ivan W. Miller · Carlos A. Camargo +6 more

61 citations0/0 files storedPsychiatric Services

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Suicide and Self-Harm Studies Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life Emergency and Acute Care Studies

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Suicide screening followed by an intervention may identify suicidal individuals and prevent recurring self-harm, but few cost-effectiveness studies have been conducted. This study sought to determine whether the increased costs of implementing screening and intervention in hospital emergency departments (EDs) are justified by improvements in patient outcomes (decreased attempts and deaths by suicide). METHODS: The Emergency Department Safety Assessment and Follow-up Evaluation (ED-SAFE) study recruited participants in eight U.S. EDs between August 2010 and November 2013. The eight sites sequentially implemented two interventions: universal screening added to treatment as usual and universal screening plus a telephone-based intervention delivered over 12 months post-ED visit. This study calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves to evaluate screening and suicide outcome measures and costs for the two interventions relative to treatment as usual. Costs were calculated from the provider perspective (e.g., wage and salary data and rental costs for hospital space) per patient and per site. RESULTS: Average per-patient costs to a participating ED of universal screening plus intervention were $1,063 per month, approximately $500 more than universal screening added to treatment as usual. Universal screening plus intervention was more effective in preventing suicides compared with universal screening added to treatment as usual and treatment as usual alone. CONCLUSIONS: Although the choice of universal screening plus intervention depends on the value placed on the outcome by decision makers, results suggest that implementing such suicide prevention measures can lead to significant cost savings.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 61 citations exist upstream.

References

2001Representing uncertainty: the role of cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves 2014Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials 2018Comparison of the Safety Planning Intervention With Follow-up vs Usual Care of Suicidal Patients Treated in the Emergency Department 2008Effectiveness of brief intervention and contact for suicide attempters: a randomized controlled trial in five countries 2017Suicide Prevention in an Emergency Department Population 2015Suicide and Suicidal Attempts in the United States: Costs and Policy Implications 2003National Strategy for Suicide Prevention: Goals and Objectives for Action 2006Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.