
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychol.
Sec. Health Psychology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1554971
This article is part of the Research TopicImplementing Mental Health Prevention and Promotion Programs: A Sustainable Approach - Volume IIView all 6 articles
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
IntroductionSuicide is a global public health issue necessitating evidence-based prevention strategies. Many individuals who die by suicide have had prior contact with healthcare services. Nearly half visit a primary care provider within a month before their death, and many visit emergency departments (EDs) frequently. Effective risk assessment in EDs is critical for suicide prevention but remains challenging. Inadequate risk assessments are a common error identified in suicide deaths. While clinical interviews are vital, risk assessment scales can support decision-making. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales are widely used but have limitations in predictive value.Material and MethodsA case-control study using psychological autopsy (PA) was conducted from 2006 to 2016. Data were collected from 662 individuals in southern Spain, including 487 suicide cases and 175 controls. PAs involved interviews with close relatives and were conducted by trained psychiatrists or psychologists. The SAD PERSONS and NO HOPE scales were utilized, and data were analysed using sensitivity, specificity, and logistic regression to develop an improved predictive model.ResultsThe SAD PERSONS scale showed high specificity but low sensitivity in predicting suicide risk. In the non-suicide group, 91.6% were classified as low risk. In the suicide group, nearly half were classified as low risk (49.6%). The modified SAD PERSONS scale showed similar results. The NO HOPE scale had low sensitivity but high specificity. An improved predictive model incorporating key variables from both scales demonstrated higher sensitivity (93.609%) and specificity (91.608%).DiscussionThe SAD PERSONS scale has limitations in effectively predicting suicide risk, particularly due to its focus on non-modifiable factors. Adding variables from the NO HOPE scale improves predictive utility. Comprehensive clinical assessments, considering psychological, social, and environmental factors, are essential for accurate suicide risk evaluation and tailored intervention.
Keywords: Suicide, SAD PERSONS Scale, NO HOPE Scale, predictive model, psychological autopsy
Received: 03 Jan 2025; Accepted: 09 Apr 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Sanz Gómez, De-la-Vega-Sánchez, Alacreu-Crespo, Ordóñez-Carrasco, Perea-González1, Castell-Navarro, Guija and Giner. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Diego De-la-Vega-Sánchez, Faculty of Medicine, University of Seville, Seville, Spain
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary Material
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.