Lifelong versus not lifelong death wishes in older adults without severe illness: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Some older adults with a persistent death wish without being severely ill report having had a death wish their whole lives (lifelong persistent death wish; L-PDW). Differentiating them from older adults without severe illness who developed a death wish later in life (persistent death wish, not lifelong; NL-PDW) can be relevant for the provision of adequate help and support. This study aims to gain insight into the characteristics, experiences, and needs of older adults with a L-PDW versus older adults with a NL-PDW and into the nature of their death wishes. METHODS: In the Netherlands, in April 2019, a cross-sectional survey study was conducted among a large representative sample of 32,477 citizens aged 55 years and older. Respondents with a L-PDW (N = 50) were compared with respondents with a NL-PDW (N = 217) using descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Respondents with a L-PDW were relatively younger and less often had (step)children. They less often looked back on a good and satisfying life with many good memories and more often reported trauma. Older adults with a NL-PDW more often reported loss and bereavement. Overall, the groups showed a lot of similarities. Both groups reported a death wish diverse in nature, numerous health problems, and a variety of needs for help and support. CONCLUSIONS: Some of the differences we found between the groups might be particularly relevant for the provision of adequate help and support to older adults with a L-PDW (i.e., their past and trauma) and to older adults with a NL-PDW (i.e., their loss and bereavement). The heterogeneity of both groups and the diverse nature of their death wish indicate that careful assessment of the death wish, its background, and underlying needs is required to provide personalized help and support to older adults with a death wish.

Nudging General Practitioners to explore suicidal thoughts among depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: While frank discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with depression is important for the prevention of suicide, suicide exploration of General Practitioners (GPs) is suboptimal. This study aimed to assess whether an intervention that prompts pop-up screens nudges GPs to more frequently explore suicidal thoughts over the course of two years. METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2018, the intervention was incorporated in the information system of the Dutch general practice sentinel network. New registration of an episode of depression triggered a pop-up screen referring to a questionnaire about GPs' behaviour with regard to exploring suicidal thoughts. In two years, 625 questionnaires were completed by GPs and analysed using multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Compared to the first year, GPs were 50% more likely to explore suicidal thoughts among patients in the second year (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.01-2.16). When adjusting for patients' gender and age we found that the effect of the pop-up screens disappeared (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.90-1.97). Suicide exploration occurred less frequently in women than in men (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43-0.98) and in older compared to younger patients (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98 per year older). In addition, 26% of variation in suicide exploration was because of differences in general practice. There was no evidence that general practices developed differently over time. CONCLUSIONS: Although low cost and easy to administer, the pop-up system was not effective in nudging GPs to explore suicidality more frequently. We encourage studies to test whether implementing these nudges as part of a multifaceted approach will lead to a stronger effect. Moreover, we recommend researchers to include more variables, such as work experience or previous mental health training, to better understand the effects of the intervention on GPs' behaviour.

Who didn't consult the doctor? Understanding sociodemographic factors in relation to health care uptake before suicide.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to establish differences between suicide decedents and a reference population across various health care settings. METHODS: This population-wide registration study combined death statistics, sociodemographic data and health care data from Statistics Netherlands. From 2010 to 2016, 12,015 suicide cases and a random reference group of 132,504 were included and assigned to one of the three health care settings; mental health (MH) care, primary care or no care. Logistic regression analyses were performed to determine differences in suicide risk factors across settings. RESULTS: In the 1-2 year period before suicide, 52% of the suicide decedents received MH care, 41% received GP care only and 7% received neither. Although sociodemographic factors showed significant differences across settings, the suicide risk profiles were not profoundly distinctive. A decreasing trend in suicide risk across health care settings became apparent for male gender, income level and being in a one-person or one-parent household, whereas for other factors (middle and older age, non-Western migration background, couples without children and people living in more sparsely populated areas), risk of suicide increased when health care setting became more specialized. LIMITATIONS: Because of the data structure, 18 months of suicide decedents' health care use were compared with two years health care use of the reference group, which likely led to an underestimation of the reported differences. CONCLUSION: Although there are differences between suicide decedents and a reference group across health care settings, these are not sufficiently distinctive to advocate for a setting-specific approach to suicide prevention.

Engaging primary care professionals in suicide prevention: A qualitative study.

In health systems with strongly developed primary care, such as in the Netherlands, effectively engaging primary care professionals (PCPs) in suicide prevention is a key strategy. As part of the national Suicide Prevention Action Network (SUPRANET), a program was offered to PCPs in six regions in the Netherlands in 2017-2018 to more effectively engage them in suicide prevention. This implementation study aimed to evaluate to what extent SUPRANET was helpful in supporting PCPs to apply suicide prevention practices. From March to May 2018, 21 semi-structured interviews have been carried out with PCPs and other non-clinical professionals from SUPRANET regions in the Netherlands. Verbatim transcripts were analysed using the grounded theory approach. Data was structured using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, which enabled identifying facilitating and challenging factors for PCPs to carry out suicide prevention practices. An important challenge included difficulties in assessing suicide risk (intervention characteristics) due to PCPs' self-perceived incompetence, burdensomeness of suicide and limited time and heavy workload of PCPs. Another important limitation was collaboration with mental health care (outer setting), whereas mental health nurses (inner setting) and SUPRANET (implementation process) were facilitating factors for applying suicide prevention practices. With regard to SUPRANET, especially the training was positively evaluated by PCPs. PCPs expressed a strong need for improving collaboration with specialized mental health care, which was not provided by SUPRANET. Educating PCPs on suicide prevention seems beneficial, but is not sufficient to improve care for suicidal patients. Effective suicide prevention also requires improved liaison between mental health services and primary care, and should therefore be the focus of future suicide prevention strategies aimed at primary care.

Applying machine learning on health record data from general practitioners to predict suicidality.

BACKGROUND: Suicidal behaviour is difficult to detect in the general practice. Machine learning (ML) algorithms using routinely collected data might support General Practitioners (GPs) in the detection of suicidal behaviour. In this paper, we applied machine learning techniques to support GPs recognizing suicidal behaviour in primary care patients using routinely collected general practice data. METHODS: This case-control study used data from a national representative primary care database including over 1.5 million patients (Nivel Primary Care Database). Patients with a suicide (attempt) in 2017 were selected as cases (N = 574) and an at risk control group (N = 207,308) was selected from patients with psychological vulnerability but without a suicide attempt in 2017. RandomForest was trained on a small subsample of the data (training set), and evaluated on unseen data (test set). RESULTS: Almost two-third (65%) of the cases visited their GP within the last 30 days before the suicide (attempt). RandomForest showed a positive predictive value (PPV) of 0.05 (0.04-0.06), with a sensitivity of 0.39 (0.32-0.47) and area under the curve (AUC) of 0.85 (0.81-0.88). Almost all controls were accurately labeled as controls (specificity = 0.98 (0.97-0.98)). Among a sample of 650 at-risk primary care patients, the algorithm would label 20 patients as high-risk. Of those, one would be an actual case and additionally, one case would be missed. CONCLUSION: In this study, we applied machine learning to predict suicidal behaviour using general practice data. Our results showed that these techniques can be used as a complementary step in the identification and stratification of patients at risk of suicidal behaviour. The results are encouraging and provide a first step to use automated screening directly in clinical practice. Additional data from different social domains, such as employment and education, might improve accuracy.

Discussing suicidality with depressed patients: an observational study in Dutch sentinel general practices.

OBJECTIVES: This paper aims to describe the degree to which general practitioners (GPs) explore suicidal behaviour among depressed patients in the Netherlands. DESIGN: An observational study of consultations between GPs and depressed patients. SETTING: 39 sentinel GP practices within the Netherlands in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a registration of depression. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure is suicide exploration by the GP. Secondary outcome measures at patient level, assessed by surveying GPs, include prevalence and severity of suicidal thoughts. Secondary outcome measures at GP level include follow-up actions of GP and reasons not to explore suicidality. RESULTS: A total of 1034 questionnaires were included in the analyses. GPs assessed and explored suicidality in 44% of patients with depression (66% in patients with a new episode of depression). GPs explored suicidal feelings more often in patients with a new episode of depression (OR 4.027, p<0.001, 95% CI 2.924 to 5.588), male patients (OR 1.709, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.256 to 2.330) or younger patients (OR 1.017, p<0.001, 95% CI 1.009 to 1.026). Multilevel analysis showed that 22% of the variation in suicide exploration is due to differences in GP practice. Thirty-eight per cent of the patients who were asked by their GP, reported (severe) suicidal ideation. Most GPs (68%) did not explore suicidal feelings because they thought the patient would not be suicidal. CONCLUSION: GPs explored suicidal thoughts in less than half of all depressed patients and in two-thirds of patients with a new episode of depression. Suicide prevention training is recommended to enhance suicide exploration.