The effectiveness of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) compared to alternative treatment conditions: A meta‐analysis. Issue 5 (17th May 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Swift, Joshua K.; Trusty, Wilson T.; Penix, Elizabeth A.
• Is Part Of: Suicide and life-threatening behavior. Volume 51:Issue 5(2021)
• Page Start: 882
• Page End: 896
• Publication Date: 2021-05-17
• Subjects: Suicide -- Periodicals; Suicide -- Prevention -- Periodicals; Behavior -- Periodicals; Suicide -- Periodicals; 362.28
• DOI: 10.1111/sltb.12765
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0363-0234

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: This meta‐analysis aimed to test the efficacy of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) intervention against other commonly used interventions for the treatment of suicide ideation and other suicide‐related variables. Method: Database, expert, and root and branch searches identified nine empirical studies that directly compared CAMS to other active interventions. A random effects model was used to calculate the effect size differences between the interventions; additionally, moderators of the effect sizes were tested for suicidal ideation. Results: In comparison to alternative interventions, CAMS resulted in significantly lower suicidal ideation ( d = 0.25) and general distress ( d = 0.29), significantly higher treatment acceptability ( d = 0.42), and significantly higher hope/lower hopelessness ( d = 0.88). No significant differences for suicide attempts, self‐harm, other suicide‐related correlates, or cost effectiveness were observed. The effect size differences for suicidal ideation were consistent across study types and quality, timing of outcome measurement, and the age and ethnicity of participants; however, the effect sizes favoring CAMS were significantly smaller with active duty military/veteran samples and with male participants. Conclusions: The existing research supports CAMS as a Well Supported intervention for suicidal ideation per Center of Disease Control and Prevention criteria. Limitations and future directions are discussed.