↓ Skip to main content

Developing the Pieta House Suicide Intervention Model: a quasi-experimental, repeated measures design

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychology, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Developing the Pieta House Suicide Intervention Model: a quasi-experimental, repeated measures design
Published in
BMC Psychology, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40359-015-0071-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul WG Surgenor, Joan Freeman, Cindy O’Connor

Abstract

While most crisis intervention models adhere to a generalised theoretical framework, the lack of clarity around how these should be enacted has resulted in a proliferation of models, most of which have little to no empirical support. The primary aim of this research was to propose a suicide intervention model that would resolve the client's suicidal crisis by decreasing their suicidal ideation and improve their outlook through enhancing a range of protective factors. The secondary aim was to assess the impact of this model on negative and positive outlook. A quasi-experimental, pre-test post-test repeated measures design was employed. A questionnaire assessing self-esteem, depression, and positive and negative suicidal ideation was administered to the same participants pre- and post- therapy facilitating paired responses. Multiple analysis of variance and paired-samples t-tests were conducted to establish whether therapy using the PH-SIM had a significant effect on the clients' negative and positive outlook. Analyses revealed a statistically significant effect of therapy for depression, negative suicidal ideation, self-esteem, and positive suicidal ideation. Negative outlook was significantly lower after therapy and positive outlook significantly higher. The decreased negative outlook and increased positive outlook following therapy provide some support for the proposed model in fulfilling its role, though additional research is required to establish the precise role of the intervention model in achieving this.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 21%
Student > Postgraduate 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 2 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 8 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 13 46%
Social Sciences 3 11%
Computer Science 1 4%
Arts and Humanities 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2018.
All research outputs
#7,214,124
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychology
#441
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,624
of 264,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychology
#8
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.