{"id":53734,"date":"2024-09-26T09:07:07","date_gmt":"2024-09-26T16:07:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.washington.edu\/research\/?page_id=53734"},"modified":"2026-01-30T09:44:12","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T17:44:12","slug":"suicide-risk","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.washington.edu\/research\/hsd\/guidance\/suicide-risk\/","title":{"rendered":"Participants At Risk of Suicide"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/a><\/p>\n This webpage provides guidance to 91探花researchers designing, and HSD and IRB members evaluating, Suicide Risk Mitigation Plans for research that may identify participants who are at risk of suicide.<\/p>\n This guidance is effective as of September 26, 2024. It applies to: 1) new applications; and 2) existing applications that are modified to add applicable populations or procedures, on or after the effective date. Existing studies with an approved Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan do not need to modify their approved Plan or submit the supplement.<\/span><\/p>\n To build a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan:<\/p>\n This guidance is intended for investigators whose research may identify participants who are at risk of suicide. This includes research that focuses on suicide prevention, research that asks about suicidal ideation or intent even if it is not the focus of the research, situations when participants are screened out for suicidal ideation, as well as situations in which participants disclose unsolicited information about suicidality.<\/p>\n In most cases where the research may identify research participants who are at risk of suicide, the 91探花IRB requires researchers to develop a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan. Identifying the Need for a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan<\/a> and Building a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan<\/a> provide guidance about when a Plan is required and what to include.<\/p>\n When a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan is required, HSD expects researchers to design an evidence-informed Plan and should be prepared, if requested, to provide the IRB with appropriate references and citations to support its design. For some research, if the research team does not have expertise in mental health research, it may be necessary to hire consultants or collaborate with experts in the field.<\/p>\n When reviewing Plans, the IRB must make decisions based on the information in this guidance and current scientific literature. Decisions should not be based on personal preference, clinical experience, previously approved studies, or strategies of \u201cbetter safe, than sorry\u201d (Hom et al., 2017). It is the IRB\u2019s responsibility to assess whether the Plan has adequate empirical support and to consider the research team\u2019s qualifications to implement it.<\/p>\n An appropriate Plan will depend heavily upon the participant population and study procedures. Researchers must also factor in the particulars of the research setting. For example, a Plan for a study taking place in Washington State may not be appropriate for the same study taking place in another U.S. state or in an international setting. HSD expects researchers to be familiar with local laws that apply to their research (e.g., mandatory reporting; involuntary commitment) and with relevant local context issues (e.g., different availability of resources and services by location). These local context issues can be described in the IRB Protocol section on \u201cNon- 91探花Research Settings\u201d or in the Risk Mitigation Plan itself.<\/p>\n For multi-institutional research, researchers may need to consult with the IRB\/HRPP or other regulatory offices of relying institutions to confirm the acceptability of the Plan in regards to local laws and institutional policies.<\/p>\n This guidance was developed using peer-reviewed publications, NIMH and FDA guidance, and the approaches used by the IRBs at University of Kentucky, University of California, Berkeley, and Brown University. 91探花 faculty and IRB members with subject matter expertise also provided input on this guidance.<\/p>\n It is important to distinguish between the duties of a researcher versus a clinician. A clinician\u2019s duty is to care and treat. Researchers have a duty to protect participants from research risks and to ensure risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. Thus, it is important to distinguish between risk mitigation strategies that are specific to the research-related risks versus resources that are being offered because of the expected underlying risk with which participants enter the study. In the context of identifying the potential of suicide risk in the course of a research study, the duty of the researcher is generally to serve as a gatekeeper who routinely takes appropriate actions to categorize risks and may do their best to connect the participant with appropriate services rather than providing those services. In an emergency, a research clinician may need to act as a provider until a hand-off can be completed, but in most cases, it is beyond the scope of the researcher\u2019s responsibility to ensure participants connect with recommended resources (Hom et al., 2017).<\/p>\n An exception to this general rule is research where the expression of mental or physical harm to the participant or others may be directly study-related, such as a behavioral intervention that triggers an elevation in participant indicators of anxiety, depression, or thoughts of self-harm. In these situations, the research may have a more causal relationship with the risk and so the researcher has a more direct responsibility to ensure<\/em> participants receive the appropriate services. Also consider, it may be that the study procedures\/interventions are not risky and may in fact be decreasing the risk through the intervention, the validation and support offered by being in a study, resources offered, or more frequent monitoring.<\/p>\n More detailed information about the appropriate Level of Response<\/a> and Connection to Services<\/a> is discussed in the section of this guidance on Building a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan.<\/p>\n If the likelihood of participants sharing information about suicidal thoughts or intent is low enough, it may not warrant developing a Plan (review framework table<\/a>). Even if a study does not solicit information about this topic, participants may offer this information in survey or questionnaire responses, during interviews, or during other interactions with the research team. Depending on the information that is shared and whether the participant is identifiable, researchers may need to reach out to the participant to offer support or a referral or they may need to reach out to others in case of mandatory reporting requirements or information about an imminent threat to the participant. As a result of the disclosure, researchers and the IRB may identify the need to implement a Plan if information sharing of that kind is likely to occur again. When this occurs, researchers are encouraged to read the guidance below for information about how to respond. If further assistance is needed, contact the HSD Regulatory Affairs Team at hsdreprt@uw.edu<\/a>.<\/p>\n Whether a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan is needed depends on the likelihood that information about suicidal thoughts, past or present, will be shared by the participants. It is helpful to think of likelihood in terms of the type of research being conducted. Use the table below to determine whether a Plan is needed and to identify the elements that the 91探花IRB will generally expect researchers to include.<\/strong> More detailed information about risk monitoring, assessment, and response elements to include in a Plan are described in Building a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Print<\/a><\/p>\nQUICK GUIDE<\/h2>\n
\n
GUIDANCE Contents<\/h3>\n
\n
\n
Purpose and Applicability<\/h2>\n
Context<\/h2>\n
Responsibilities – Researcher vs Clinician<\/h2>\n
Responding to Information About Suicidality When There is No Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan<\/h2>\n
Identifying the Need for a Suicide Risk Mitigation Plan<\/h2>\n