Evidence Hub

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) Versus Treatment as Usual (TAU) for Suicidal College Students

J. Pistorello, D. Jobes, R. Gallop, S. Compton, Nadia Samad Locey, Josephine S. Au, Samantha K. Noose, Joseph C Walloch et al.

Archives of Suicide Research, 2020

33 participants · 39 citations

Abstract

Abstract This randomized controlled trial compared the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS) and Treatment as Usual (TAU) for suicidal college students within a feasibility trial. Sixty-two suicidal college students were randomized to CAMS (n = 33) or TAU (n = 29). We hypothesized that those receiving CAMS would show more improvement in suicide-related measures, and effects would be moderated by borderline personality disorder (BPD), prior suicide attempts, and age. Both treatment groups showed improvements in all outcome variables; CAMS had a significantly higher impact on depression and suicidal ideation when measured weekly during care and was more likely than TAU to decrease hopelessness among students with fewer BPD features, no suicide attempt history, and older age. Conversely, TAU did better for students with BPD features and history of multiple suicide attempts.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 33 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free