Who You Treat: Marginalized Populations

The NEED for Competence and Confidence

Posted on by erics

I recently recorded a two-hour workshop on Zoom for a virtual presentation at the Psychotherapy Networker Symposium Conference that is held every year in Washington DC (in non-pandemic times). This conference is a major professional event for psychotherapists across disciplines and I was thrilled to be invited to do this workshop.

To my delight, the organizers proposed the following title: “Treating Suicide Risk with Competence and Confidence: How to Move Beyond our Fears.” I liked this title for many reasons but mostly because of the emphasis on competence and confidence which is critical for effectively working with patients who are suicidal.

I also loved the idea of “moving beyond fear” because for many practitioners, fear is what drives defensive practices and/or avoidance of patients who are suicidal. Clinical fears include fear of litigation should there be a bad outcome, fear of not being able to control the patient’s self-destructive behaviors, fear of investing in therapeutic care and concern for patient only to lose them to suicide. As I have previously blogged and written about many times, clinicians’ fear and avoidance of patients who are suicidal is a major barrier for patients receiving effective and potentially life-saving care.

Upon reflection the presentation turned out well, I think? One never knows talking at their laptop for two straight hours. In the virtual workshop I did my usual tour, beginning with the field’s historic mishandling of people who are mentally ill, which is frankly a pretty horrifying story of marginalizing persons who suffered, seeing them as deviants possessed by evil spirits. It is noteworthy that every major world religion has some form of ritual exorcism. Long before effective treatments took root, societies around the world largely responded to abnormal behavior through prayers, exorcism rituals, and crude interventions such as waterboarding and trephination (drilling large holes in the cranium to release evil spirits). Critically, people who were mentally ill were marginalized to the fringes of society as they were literally chained up in dank cellars, imprisoned in appalling jails, and ultimately sent to asylums.

There was a movement in the late 18th century led by Dr. Phillipe Pinel outside of Paris to liberate people who were mentally ill from their chains with the advent of so-called “moral treatment.” While philosophically compelling with some who aspired to make asylums a genuine kind of sanctuary (e.g., the 19th-century Kirkbride asylums in the United States) the reality of moral treatment was not reflected in the reality of “care” for those who struggled with mental disorders.

In fact, “lunatics” were warehoused, restrained, assaulted, and later in the 20th century given brutal treatments of electroconvulsive therapy (often breaking bones as patients convulsed) and the horrific use of “icepick” lobotomies. The latter was particularly crude and inexact—a Washington DC physician name Walter Freeman performed thousands of lobotomies, driving from hospital to hospital performing up to a dozen lobotomies per visit. He would take a sharp steel tool resembling an icepick that was hammered through the orbit of the patient’s eye through the cranium to sever—rather ineptly—portions of the frontal lobes. The procedure was initially celebrated as a wonder cure because patient behavior changed dramatically (despite patients dying and some receiving multiple “treatments”). Bottom line, not good.

Taken together it is a horrifying history that reflects a fundamental fear of mental illness and a societal desire to control abnormal behaviors by any means. Doctors largely sought to dominate, control, and restrict potentially undesirable behaviors—bizarre movements, violence, and of course suicide.

I take pains to share this sordid history because it is truly relevant to contemporary care. Certain patients—such as people who are suicidal—can evoke intense fear and be experienced as a threat, an adversary, and someone to be avoided. But in the clinical life-saving business it is extremely difficult to help save a life from suicide if the clinician is fundamentally afraid of their patient. And as I have noted in this blog there is a significant historic lineage of non-therapeutic fear.

The presentation then delved into my review of screening for suicidal risk, the use of assessment tools, and the relative limits—and problems—related to clinical judgement, not the least of which is the notable overconfidence that clinicians have in their “gut” judgement and their general aversion to assessment tools therein.

Next, I reviewed interventions that focus on the management of acute suicidal crises (e.g., safety planning, use of the National Lifeline and Textline, and lethal means safety). Having reviewed these topics, I then delved into the evidence-base of suicide-focused treatments (DBT, CT-SP, BCBT) which are supported by rigorous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the notable limits and lack of RCT support for medications in relation to suicidal risk. It follows that a good portion of the second hour focused on CAMS as a patient-centered, evidence-based, suicide-focused, clinical treatment supported by five published RCTs.

Here is the point. I do workshop talks all the time; I can expand, or contract the content, as needed depending on the forum and audience. But what really struck me about this Zoom-based workshop was that it targeted an audience that may feel fearful of suicidal risk, which led to my sponsors’ proposed title. They expressly wanted me to address an audience of practitioners who need to move beyond fear to better help patients who struggle with suicidal thoughts.

Within this simple realization a few things struck me. I learned years ago in graduate school about the critical role that fear plays in our lives. Fear is limbic-based (the “older” part of our brain) and primitive. Fear is central to our “fight or flight” response that kept our ancestors alive. But fear also has the power to paralyze—the proverbial deer in headlights. I also learned early on with a patient who was profoundly traumatized and diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder (i.e., multiple personality disorder).

Together we discovered a wonderful therapeutic “fairy tale” book about dissociation that noted the following key idea:  behind every fear is a legitimate need. Thus, if an ancient ancestor was chased by a sabertooth tiger, it evoked tremendous fear and a clear need for safety from the predator so as to not be devoured. It follows, that in a contemporary sense, if we fear working with a person who is suicidal, there is a fundamental need for clinical competence (to do something that works) and confidence to work effectively with this inherently scary issue.

Fortunately, CAMS can offer a reliable path to clinical competence and confidence, which is the best way to deal with the clinical fear. Competence is rooted in doing something proven effective; with competence, confidence can follow. And here is the thing about confidence: it creates a placebo effect in the patient. If we can therefore be competent and confident, patients feel it and it changes their brain chemistry (as proven by placebologists who study the effect and changes that are seen in MRIs). And here is another thing about confidence: we know that training in CAMS significantly increases clinician confidence as per a rigorous study of trainings conducted by Dorian Lamis and his research team in Georgia (Associations of Suicide Prevention Trainings with Practices and Confidence among Clinicians at Community Mental Health Centers).

In summary, in the face of our fears about working with people who are suicidal, we can realize and embrace our need to practice with competence by using evidence-based approaches like CAMS. Moreover, we also know that training in CAMS significantly instills confidence in mental health providers, which changes brain chemistry and may play a critical role in in helping to clinically save lives.

Hope

Posted on by erics

Hope is such a simple word. Yet for suicidal people in the depths of despair, hope is a beacon that they crave more than anything – but abjectly fear, because to believe in hope means to risk catastrophic disappointment. What I have come to learn over my decades in suicide prevention is that hope is everything to finding a way out of suicidal hell and into a life worth living with purpose and meaning.

There is a recent study of CAMS that I will be talking and writing about for years to come. For now, I will await publication of the investigation before saying more. But one of the key findings that most warmed my heart was how hope is engendered in suicidal patients engaged in CAMS.

Indeed, we know across clinical trials of CAMS that hopelessness is reliably decreased over the course of care while hope—and even optimism—is generated by the intervention as well. I know hope when I see it, and sparks of hope routinely occur at certain key moments across CAMS sessions. Within the first session of CAMS when the clinician and patient collaboratively complete the initial Suicide Status Form assessment there are often tiny sparks of hope. As the patient warily rates and describes elements of their struggle and the empathic clinician listens, validates, and actually gets what they are describing, there can be a glimmer of hope. When the clinician helps the patient elaborate the struggle and does not judge them, shame them, or ever wag a finger, there can be a flash of hope. When the clinician candidly speaks to the goal of keeping even a relatively highly suicidal person out of the hospital (if at all possible), there can be a spark of hope. So you are not going to try to get rid of me and lock me up?

When the dyad carefully develops the CAMS Stabilization Plan for the patient and the clinician notes that the patient can learn to cope differently without resorting to suicide, there is often a curious look and sometime a twinkle of hope. Perhaps most dramatically, when the dyad completes the initial CAMS Treatment Plan in which the patient’s own suicidal “drivers” are identified (i.e., issues and problems that compel the patient to entertain suicide), goals and objectives are set, and potential interventions to target and treat those very drivers are noted, there is often an unmistakable flash of hope in the patients eyes. “Can you really treat these problems?” says an incredulous patient. In turn, the clinician replies, “…yes, of course we treat these problems all the time and if we do so successfully with you, perhaps you will come to see that you don’t need to end your life.” This is how CAMS-inspired hope may emerge in a first session.

My Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) at Catholic University has been dedicated to many suicide prevention-oriented studies over many years. But one of the biggest tasks of the SPL my graduate students and I undertake is the fidelity and adherence work that we routinely do as part of clinical trials of CAMS. Fidelity is a solemn obligation within clinical trial research that requires that research investigators ensure that experimental and control treatments are indeed different from each other.

For example, within a CAMS randomized controlled trial (RCT) that means clinicians in the CAMS arm of the trial are doing the intervention adherently (as it was designed to be used) and clinicians in the control arm of the trial are not doing CAMS and are adherently providing the comparison treatment (e.g., usual treatment or Dialectical Behavior Therapy within our trials).

Here is the point: our job in these RCTs is to watch a lot of digital recordings of clinicians doing CAMS and often watching control sessions to ensure that the control treatment is being done properly. In other words, this fidelity work means we watch hundreds of hours of therapy sessions with suicidal people who are willing to participate in a RCT. It is from this perspective that my trained eye has come to recognize the behavioral, verbal, and emotional indicators of hope.

Hope is sometimes reflected in the almost shy glance that a patient makes towards the clinician—it is a look that says, are you for real? Can I trust you? Do you really mean it when you say you care about me? In later interim sessions of CAMS, hope is seen in a patient who sits up just a little straighter than they did in earlier sessions and who is genuinely interested in the clinician’s comments and input on their life and death struggle. Hope is seen in the flicker of smiles between patient and therapist as the dyad reviews “a good week.” Hope is often seen in an outcome-disposition session that formally draws CAMS to a close, wherein both parties reflect on how far they have come, appreciating and taking stock of gains made, and look forward to the road ahead in the patient’s “post-suicidal life.”

While the quantitative clinical trial results are robust, we know that decreasing hopelessness and increasing hope within CAMS is the lifeblood of a successful course of CAMS-guided care. Hope is simply the remedy to suicidal despair, desolation, despondency. And when you have seen the spark of hope in the eyes of suicidal person, you will never forget it. It is as if an entire inexorable fatal world view has been paused, gradually reconsidered, and even transformed into a world of potential possibilities.

In truth, hope does not happen every time with every patient. But within adherently provided CAMS we know that hope happens more often than not, and when hope happens truly anything is possible.

Such a simple word, hope, but in the suicide prevention and life-worth-living business it speaks volumes.

Considering Suicidal Ideation—Again!

Posted on by erics

In recent years I have spoken, published, and blogged about the relative importance of suicidal ideation as a public health concern that does not get the proper health concern of the public. A couple of other reminders came up just last week that again underscores the need to fundamentally shift our focus to appreciating the magnitude of the suicidal ideation population, which is 225 times greater than the population of those that die by suicide.

I was reviewing the most recent 2019 data from SAMHSA about the incidence of suicide-related concerns among American adults that calendar year. Take a close look at Figure 60 from the SAMHSA report—does anything particularly strike you?

Serious Thoughts of Suicide Graph

As I look at this figure my eyes are naturally drawn to the highlighted blue, green, and yellow regions that respectively reflect those who made suicide plans, those who made plans and attempted suicide, those who attempted suicide, and finally those who made no plans and attempted suicide (not sure how that works exactly but such are the data).

But upon some reflection, what jumps off the page to me is that the outer circle depicts 12,000,000 American adults with serious thoughts of suicide which is not highlighted, earning only a modest gray coloring. This SAMHSA report figure thus completely fails to highlight the true objective magnitude of our suicide ideation challenge!

My question is: Why is this population graphically trivialized in this figure? In truth, 12M Americans is a massive population, roughly the size of the state populations of Pennsylvania or Illinois. If we are truly examining the challenge of suicide as a public health issue, we of course care deeply about 48,000+ of Americans who died by suicide in 2018, and the 1.4M attempting suicide in 2019 is extremely concerning as well – but frankly these populations are utterly dwarfed by the massive suicide ideation population. And it logically follows that if we were better at identifying and treating this gigantic population, we may have many fewer attempts and ultimately many fewer completions. Right?

As I recently blogged, I have been honored to be a part of a small team that is working to write an addendum to the 2018 Recommended Standard Care for People with Suicide Risk: Making Health Care Suicide Safe promulgated by the National Alliance for Suicide Prevention. This draft addendum focuses on the apparent inclination of some health care systems to discontinue or suspend screening and assessment of suicidal risk since the Covid-19 pandemic which has driven our health care to online/telehealth modalities. In the forthcoming addendum there is a reassertion that even within telehealth there is a reasonable way to screen and assess for suicide risk (even if this is done asynchronously). In the addendum we have argued that not asking about suicide is no way to go about actually preventing suicides. After all, it is hard to save lives if we do not know that patients are at risk.

Here is the point: in my final review of the carefully written document our language tended to emphasize depression and suicidal behaviors, not even mentioning the importance of suicidal ideation. Even I, who have held these beliefs for some time, completely missed this omission in early drafts!

Mind you, depression and suicide are not synonymous; out of the 132 Americans that die from suicide each day in the U.S., roughly half may be clinically depressed (many others will be psychotic, anxious, substance abusing, personality disordered, etc.). In other words, depression is not even remotely the cause of many of our suicides since millions of Americans are clinically depressed and only a small fraction of them die by suicide.

In my final review of our addendum I made edits to de-emphasize depression and suicidal behaviors in lieu of emphasizing suicidal ideation, particularly as it relates to screening and assessment within a telehealth modality during a worldwide pandemic. I am pleased to note that while depression remains in the document, we have properly underscored the import of suicidal ideation and cited the SAMHSA paper noted above.

This is not going to be the last time that I appeal for us to recalibrate our suicide prevention policy, research, and clinical care focus to stop this peculiar bias to overly focusing on suicidal behaviors while dangerously disregarding suicidal ideation. My journal papers should not be rejected because CAMS “only” reduced suicidal ideation. Indeed, I would note within the clinical treatment research that other excellent suicide-focused interventions (e.g., DBT, CT-SP, and BCBT) do not reliably reduce suicidal ideation like CAMS does. However, these interventions more reliably reduce suicide attempts (while CAMS has only promising behavioral data thus far). The clinical trial data to date are exactly why I have strongly argued for a “one size does not fit all” approach to care for suicidal risk.

So, I am going to keep on banging the suicide ideation drum, appealing to those in our field to more completely consider the import and magnitude of the suicidal ideation population. In truth, if we truly aim to reduce completed suicides, our research, practices, and policies must better target and treat the underlying iceberg of suicidal ideation so as to reduce the tip above the water of suicide attempts and ultimately deaths by suicide.

A Guide to Contextualizing the Reality of Systemic Racism and Black Suicidology – Part 3: Working with Suicidal Black Youth

On our journey of enlightenment and understanding the mechanisms of Black suicidality, we have explored the socio-historical context, current literature, and treatments available towards mental health care. By utilizing an intersectional lens, we began to unravel the complexities of systemic racism and how those processes influence and trigger suicidal behavior among Black Americans. It illustrates the erasure of methodology and treatment centered towards the Black experience within the U.S. Like a worn-out washing machine, it continues to perpetrate the cycle of institutionalized violence.

Now what? It is important to articulate the discourse around Black suicidology, but discourse by itself is an empty vessel. Even more relevant is the ability to apply knowledge to practice. In this final part of this series, we will conceptualize the implementation of effective treatment on suicidal Black youth, which has been alarmingly on the rise these past few years. Although we have been taken a macro analysis of Black suicide, I think it is important to center our lens towards the current crises: Black adolescents.1

Internal & External Risk Factors

As we have discussed in the previous parts of this series, there is a magnitude of risk factors that influence Black youth suicidality. I have compiled a list of internal and external risk factors that possibly influence suicidal behavior among Black adolescents:

  • A history of mental health disorders.
    Research suggests that Black children with a history of mental health disorders (i.e., depression, anxiety, ADHD, etc.) are at higher risk to die by suicide.2 Factoring the prevalence of misdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of Black mental disorders, these suggestions are alarming.
  • Bullying victimization.
    Black children raised in predominately White neighborhoods experience increased peer bullying, institutionalized racism, lower academic performance, and higher suspensions than their White counterparts.3 Trends show these children (ranging from school age to adolescence) use more lethal means such as suicide by hanging.
  • Lack of family/community cohesion.
    Within marginalized groups, family and community are important components of social survival. Family/community cohesion is the perception and inclusion of an individual within their identity groups, enabling a feeling of inclusion and the action of support. Sometimes these cohesive structures maybe broken due to social, economic, and other structural stressors. An individual that does not have family/community cohesion may exhibit feelings of isolation, burdensomeness, and hopelessness.
  • Inaccessibility to mental health services.
    Mental health services are often inaccessible to individuals who reside in low-income communities. Without the means to affordable and accessible care, suicidal behavior is not addressed or left unchecked.
  • Mental health stigma.
    The average person is not fully versed on the scientific and psychological understandings of mental health. There are numerous taboos and perceptions about suicide that may hinder treatment. Some religious, cultural, and social backgrounds may perceive suicidal behavior as a manifestation of “weakness” or “crazy-behavior”. These views help to stigmatize suicidal individuals.
  • Racial biases among mental health providers.
    As we have previously discussed, there has been a racialized bias, and even intentional mistreatment, of Black patients within the mental health field. This can be presented as the perception that Black people are so mentally and physically “strong” that suicide might not be a problem, or they have a higher threshold for the stressors that lead to suicidal behavior. This may lead to dismissal of an individual’s mental health needs.

Treating Black Youth Suicidality

While working with Black clients, I have established three main goals that I think are essential to the therapeutic process. These objectives can be implemented across your therapeutic style, whether CBT, psychoanalyses, or a mix-treatment. The aim is to build a foundation of trust between the client and the provider. The initial process of therapy should include the following steps:

  1. Identify Risk Factors.
    Address the core issues presented by your client. Suicidal behavior among Black youth is not isolated. In my opinion, it is a residual effect of environmental, social, genetic, and psychological stressors. It is like a puzzle piece, a small component of a larger picture. It is influenced by many other factors, and to effectively address suicidal behavior you must identify and acknowledge the risk factors that influence the client’s suicidality.
  2. Affirm Their Experiences.
    Affirming the client’s experiences is crucial because it provides it provides a safe space in the context of solidarity and helps to re-distribute the power dynamics in the relationship. Affirmation of the individual allows them to feel and experience a sense of control, while allowing the therapist to embrace empathy.
  3. Speak Truth to Power.
    There is power in words. In expression. Vocalization is the act of giving voice what is voiceless. It is providing the tools necessary for an individual’s enlightenment of self and the support system. This can be presented in the form of education through family/community engagement, client narrative writing (journaling), or a tool such as the CAMS the suicidal status form (SSF), which allows the therapist and client to note suicidal behavior through a collaborative exercise.

I try to implement these objectives in both my academic and clinical work. They can be generalized to every patient; however, I find that keeping these three objectives in mind helps me to provide a more holistic approach when working with Black adolescents.

Case Studies: Practicing the Identify-Affirm-Speak Method

Tiffany

Tiffany is six years old. She lives in the suburbs of Northern Virginia with her parents. She attends a predominately White primary school and is the only Black student in her classroom. Tiffany is often bullied by her peers due to her physical appearance. She is beginning to feel isolated from her classmates. Tiffany informs her teacher about the bullying. The teacher assures her that if she ignores the bullies, the bullying will stop.

The bullying does not stop. It continues and begins to affect her academic performance. Tiffany, a recently high achiever, has not been completing her assignments and is not engaged in class discussions. Her teacher remarks to her parents that Tiffany’s behavior has become detached and rude towards others. Tiffany’s mother has also noticed negative changes in her behavior. She labels Tiffany’s behavior as lazy and disrespectful.

Tiffany attempts to avoid school by stating she feels sick during the weekdays, and on the weekends, she sleeps the whole day. Tiffany also spends a lot of time on the computer. Her mother has discovered her recent search history includes “how to kill yourself” and “how to hang a rope”. Her parents have found a Black, female therapist in the region because they are worried about her wellbeing.

When providing therapy for Tiffany, the therapist might find it helpful to:

  1. Identify risk factors: Tiffany’s risk factors include a history of victimization/bullying by her peers. It is important for the therapist to recognize the racialized/gendered aspect of the discrimination. Tiffany is constantly being dismissed or negatively perceived by authority figures (her teacher and mother). This increases her feelings of isolation and withdrawal. She displays symptoms of depression and her exposure to the internet has provided her with information to make death by suicide a reality.
  2. Affirm her experience. Tiffany’s emotions and experiences are valid. It is important to affirm her experiences because she has been de-valued by her peers, authority figures, and parents. Providing affirmation will build the foundation to work together to create a plan to deal with the factors that influence her suicidality.
  3. Speak truth to her power. The therapist should work with Tiffany and her parents to establish a solid support system and establish health boundaries between the parent-child relationship and provide educational understanding of suicidal behavior. Increasing the parents’ comprehension may address the academic challenges as a cohesive unit. Finding positive outlets of expression may increase Tiffany’s vocalization of her emotions and experiences.

Omar

Omar is a thirteen-year-old who lives in the Bronx with his parents, who are working class and sometimes struggle with finances. Omar has always been perceived as “troubled”. Since a toddler, he has displayed emotional outburst whenever he is frustrated or annoyed. He struggles with academics and continues to display a lack of emotional regulation. When confronted by an authority figure, Omar erupts into explosive outbursts. His teachers classify his behavior as disruptive and aggressive, however he is viewed as a class clown by his classmates. Omar has an extensive history of suspensions and has recently been expelled from his current school due to a physical altercation with a teacher.

At the age of nine, Omar was diagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). Omar is very active on social media and follows a politically motivated group that shares information about police brutality and systemic racism in the NYC area. Omar shares with the group his negative experiences with “the system”. On these sites, Omar has been increasingly exposed to visual media of images of Black people being brutalized on camera. These images have psychologically impacted Omar and influence his feelings of isolation and trauma.

Omar has a history of hospitalization due to self-mutilation and suicide attempts. Recently, Omar has been hospitalized after threatening suicide with his father’s handgun. He has been referred by his social worker to a White, male therapist who specializes in suicidal behavior and multicultural therapy.

When providing therapy for Omar, the therapist might find it helpful to:

  1. Identify risk factors: Omar’s history with a mental disorder is something to be considered. However, it is important to be mindful of the delicate balance between providing treatment and safe space for the client. Analyze what you observe from the behavior and confront assumptions that may contribute to systematic biases. Omar’s history of self-mutilation and past suicide attempts are huge red flags. His increased exposure to social media and political engagement may increase his suicidal behavior if not moderated. His proximity to lethal means is also a consideration.
  2. Affirm his experiences. Omar’s therapist should internalize the complexities of Omar’s mental disorder and his subjective experience with racism, classism, and other oppressive categorizations. Individuals who experience mental disorders are not a monolith, so in treating Omar’s suicidal behavior, the therapist should affirm his subjective experiences. What might be presented as symptoms of a mental disorder could be symptoms of discrimination, and vice versa. These things can also be mutually inclusive. It is a complex and delicate balance that a professional needs to navigate. I think that to be effective, all possibilities must be affirmed with the client. The therapist might want to be mindful that while social media and political engagement can be therapeutic, past a certain threshold it can turn counterproductive and unhealthy. Omar’s methods of engagement and the possibility of social media burnout should also be discussed with him. Omar’s complicated history with authority figures should warn the therapist that this relationship must be more mutually inclusive and collaborative to function.
  3. Speak truth to his power. The therapist should work with Omar and his parents to better understand and discuss his mental health including his suicidal behavior. Omar is at a critical stage where he needs a cohesive support system. At this step, a focus is Omar’s emotional regulation and ability of expression. A plan should be created to implement safe spaces where Omar can freely acknowledge his emotional triggers and build confidence in expressing himself. Room should be provided to address the suicidal behavior. As the therapist continues to validate Omar’s experience, discussion can begin on self-care and de-escalation of engagement for Omar’s personal growth.

Tiffany and Omar are examples of the complexities of treating Black youth and express the importance of encompassing a critical theory lens when addressing suicidal behavior among minority groups. To address their suicidality a mental health provider should contextualize the social, cultural, and historical oppositions that they endure. This is their positionality within society. Identify their risk factors. Affirm their experiences. Speak truth to their power.

In Conclusion

There are numerous risk factors impacting the phenomena of suicidal behavior among Black adolescents in the U.S. These internal and external factors possibly underscore the undercurrent of institutionalized racism. Addressing the context of this marginalization may help build the therapeutic relationship between mental health providers and Black clients—extending to the larger Black community.

I appreciate your willingness to journey with me in this series through the complex dynamics of systemic racism and its impact on the suicidality of Black youth. These things are messy and uncomfortable. Yet we must sit with our discomfort and acknowledge the social-historical context of medical biases, racial civil unrest, and political engagement. If we can ask our clients to enter our spaces and share their personal experiences, then it is our responsibility to reciprocate, we can make a difference in this vulnerable population. The mental health of Black children depends on it.

Footnotes:

  1. https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2020/01/black-youth-suicide
  2. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/education/2019/02/04/black-history-month-february-schools-ap-racism-civil-rights/2748790002/

About the Author

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

See More Articles by this Author

About Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

A Guide to Contextualizing the Reality of Systemic Racism and Black Suicidology – Part 2: Current Research and Treatments

In Part 1 of this series, we discussed the complex political and historical context of social unrest that influences the growing rates of Black youth suicide. We addressed how systemic racism is an umbrella under which the conditions of Black suicidology, high COVID-19 mortality rates for African Americans, and the current protest against police brutality are interconnected. In conclusion, we highlighted the importance of dismantling marginalization within the mental health system. In this second part of this three-part series, we will examine the current research and evidence-based treatments that address Black suicidology.

In general, death by suicide within the U.S. has continued to significantly increase.1 When examining suicidal patterns by race/ethnicity, suicide rates are lower among African Americans. However, when we take a closer look, suicide among Black adolescents is increasing at an alarming rate.2 The matter of concern is so disturbing that in 2018 a taskforce was pioneered by Representative Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and leading experts engineered a bill that will help combat political and mental health factors that influence Black youth suicidology. H.R. 5469: Pursing Equity in Mental Health Act of 2019 has been introduced to the House and referred to the subcommittee of Health. The main objectives of the bill are as follows:

  1. strengthen school-based mental health resources for children and teens,
  2. provide mental health awareness to minorities through community outreach,
  3. address racial and ethnic minority gaps in research, and
  4. address racial disparities in mental health treatment.3

It is immensely important for mental health providers to contextualize the growing trend of suicide among Black adolescents, which does not only encompass suicide, but also factors in self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hospitalization. As we take a comprehensive snapshot of Black suicidology, systematic patterns of marginalization, biases, and inadequacies emerge that contribute to systemic racism.

As I have noted in Part 1, we cannot address Black suicidology without addressing the whole system. The influences of generational poverty, employment biases, housing segregation, environmental racism, and academic disparities play a crucial part in the efficacy of treatment directed at Black communities.

Research on Black Suicidology

Throughout human history, people have been intrigued by the nuances of psychology, including suicidal behavior. The contemporary written literature begins around the late 19th century. Sociologist Émile Durkheim was among the early suicidologists who published his theories. Durkheim theorized suicide as an outcome of social isolation rather than a psychological disfunction.4 Durkheim’s research, primarily a European, male-focused sample, conceptualized suicide as an act exerted by the forces of external factors. This approach neglected the understanding of internal, individualistic behaviors that factor into suicide.

As we transition to more contemporary theories, the paradigm shifts to a greater collective comprehension of individualized behavior. Psychiatrist Aaron Beck centers cognitive behavior within suicidology. He interprets suicide within the framework that individuals with higher degrees of hopelessness—an emotional state referring to negative perceptions of oneself and/or positionality—are tied to more lethal means of suicidality.5 Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) was created by Beck to treat suicidal clients using a technique that modifies cognitive process. In comparison to Durkheim, Beck’s theory of suicide does address the emotional difficulties linked to psychological disturbances within cognition.

The interpersonal theory of suicide, coined by psychologist Thomas Joiner, conceptualizes suicidal behavior as a complex mental health problem induced by external and internal conflicts, specifically the correlation of:

  1. thwarted belongingness—the psychological necessity of connectedness,
  2. perceived burdensomeness—feelings of exclusion from one’s social group(s), and
  3. capability for suicide—the accessibility to lethal means, increases the desirability for suicide.6

The study of suicide is interdisciplinary and has an extensive philosophical history. However, the magnitude of theory has provided a European, patriarchal lens that centers Whiteness as the default subject. While suicide has been considered a White male problem, the patterns we currently observe stress the importance of integrating the “other”. While we understand that racial/ethnic differences are not attributable to psychological or cognitive differences, social and cultural differences may impact a client’s suicidality.

There is limited literature/research on the phenomenon of African American suicidality. However, suicide research is beginning to be diversified due to the growing attention to Black youth suicide centralized by Black researchers, lawmakers, and mental health professionals.

Another factor in the discrepancies of suicidal research among Black participants is the communal distrust of the mental health field. African Americans, and other minority groups, have historically been subject to unethical, inhumane experiments ranging from scientific racism that naturalizes the inferiority of Black people to forced sterilization. 7,8 In the current state, it is comprehensible and valid that these communities may hesitate to participate in modern research.

Suicide research has contributed to the marginalization of suicidal Black clients by neglecting to examine the complex and unique social/cultural factors that impact Black people experiences. In addition, minorities might be hesitant to participant in studies due to the historical centering of racism within mental health.9

In addressing these concerns, here are a few things to keep in mind when conducting research:

  1. Re-valuate the Research Question.
    If your objective is to study a diverse sample, check that the research question(s) reflects that purpose.
  2. Expand Recruitment Techniques.
    While recruiting participants from university settings (i.e., college campuses, university hospitals) are possibly more convenient, these settings may not be helpful in collecting a more diversified sample. If applicable, think about networking directly with local community clinics, non-profits, religious institutes, and organizations. These groups tend to be the pillars of community engagement and trust.
  3. Integrate Diversity among Researchers.
    Diversifying the scientific community is equally important as including minority participants in research efforts. Providing diversity inclusion within academia is not merely an act of diversity for the sake of diversity, rather providing opportunities for people of color to share their expertise with other professionals within leadership roles.
  4. Highlight the Importance of Research.
    Sometimes scientific jargon is dense, and to the non-scientist can be intimidating. If applicable, highlighting the importance of your study to the participants may be helpful in bridging the trust divide. What is the big picture? Why is this important? Adding the individual, community, and social importance of research integrates a humanistic approach to science.

Treatments for Black Suicidology

In this section, we will discuss the efficacy of two main evidence-based treatments that have been shown to efficiently treat suicidal behavior: CBT and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT). We will also examine relevance of CAMS as a therapeutic framework in treating Black suicidology.

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)
As a cognitive-centered intervention CBT focuses on modifying the mental processes that influence suicidal thoughts. Fundamentally, at its core, CBT is a behavioral modification technique.10 CBT training that directly addresses suicidal cognitions and behaviors have shown to be very effective in treating suicidal clients.11 There is limited information on the efficacy of CBT treatment specific to Black suicidal behavior. The available empirical findings concentrate on depressive disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and substance abuse. The findings show a mixture of support on integrating multicultural specific interventions.11

Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT)
Dr. Marsha M. Lineman, designed DBT as an evidence-based practice to treat chronically suicidal clients. An off shoot of CBT, DBT is a mindful-based, behavior modifying treatment that centers the client-therapist relationship to alter processes such as emotional regulation and build coping mechanisms.13 DBT has shifted to primarily treat Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD). While there are a multitude of research that supports the efficacy of DBT with BPD clients that express suicidal behavior, the limited literature that discusses African Americans, centers on Black adolescent males diagnosed with Conduct Disorder or display aggressive tendencies.14, 15

The Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicidality (CAMS)
CAMS is a therapeutic framework that centers on a collaborative, client-focused approach to treating suicidal clients. It is administered with other treatments, and research supports its validity in supplementing suicide-related therapy.16 Research indicates that CAMS has significant potential in multicultural clients, though the efficacy of CAMS Treatment™ on African American suicidology is limited.17

There are a handful of evidence based, suicide-focused treatments. CBT and DBT appear to be highly beneficial to suicidal clients due to their direct modification of suicidal thoughts. The inclusion of client-centered therapeutic frameworks may contribute to increasing support for minority clients. There is a balancing act between sticking to the foundation of these therapies and integrating multicultural awareness.

Based on these possibilities, here are few suggestions to consider when treating Black clients:

  1. Provide Affordable & Accessible Treatment.
    There are not enough treatments accessible and affordable to low-income, disadvantaged communities. Some reasons for this deficiency are due to factors outside of the mental health field. However, they can be addressed through the client-therapist relationship.
  2. Acknowledge Cultural Differences.
    It is essential within the client-therapist relationship to acknowledge the cultural and social disparities that influence the client’s suicidal behavior. As the mental health provider, it is important to not dismiss or ignore their concerns.
  3. Affirm: The Client is the Expert on their Experiences.
    My key ideology when addressing clients is to affirm the expertise of the client. Affirming that their experience is valid is crucial in building trust and rapport.
  4. Establish Space for Black Mental Health Providers.
    As in research, creating a diverse workforce of mental health providers should be normalized. Black therapists are situated in a unique space where they might have an insider understanding on the complex challenges of treating suicide within Black communities.

Conclusion

The study of suicide and suicidal behavior has an extensive history, yet there is a limitation on the understanding of impacts on Black clients. Whiteness has played a central role in our understanding of suicide, but current research illustrates an alarming uptake in suicidal behavior by Black children and teens. In strengthening research and treatment, we must consider our clients’ experiences and the impact of systemic racism on institutions.

In Part 1, we analyzed the context of systemic racism and its psychological toll on Black consciousness. In this Part 2, we reviewed current research and treatment centered on Black suicidology. Now what?  In the comprehensive conclusion to this series, we will address where we go from here with an in-depth look at the necessary measures needed to strengthen treatment for suicidal Black youth.

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db330-h.pdf
  2. https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2019/december/BlackYouthSuicideRatesRising.html
  3. Suicide by Émile Durkheim
  4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223847/
  5. Why do People Die by Suicide by Thomas Joiner
  6. Medical Apartheid by Harriet A. Washington
  7. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/disturbing-resilience-scientific-racism-180972243/
  8. Eliminating Race-Based Mental Health Disparities by Dr. Monnica Williams, Dr. Daniel Rosen, & Dr. Johnathan Kanter
  9. https://beckinstitute.org/get-informed/what-is-cognitive-therapy/
  10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4780394/
  11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4547560/
  12. https://www.dbtselfhelp.com/DBTinaNutshell.pdf
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178914000147
  14. https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2014-49443-001.html
  15. Managing Suicidal Risk: A Collaborative Approach by David A. Jobes
  16. Choi, J.L., Rogers, J.R., & Werth Jr, J.L. (2009). Suicide risk assessment with asian american college students: A culturally informed perspective. The Counseling Psychologist, 37, 186-218.

About the Author

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

See More Articles by this Author

About Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

Suicide and Communities of Color: On-Demand

Dr. Jobes and his special guest expert Dr. Sherry Davis Molock will discuss suicide within communities of color with an eye to research, policy, and clinical considerations for effectively preventing suicide within these communities.

Dr. Sherry Molock

About Dr. Sherry Molock

Sherry Davis Molock is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at The George Washington University in Washington, DC. Dr. Molock teaches undergraduate and doctoral courses in the field of clinical psychology and conducts research on the prevention of suicide and HIV in African American adolescents and young adults. Dr. Molock’s work has appeared in a number of professional journals; she has served on a number of local and national boards, and currently serves on the Steering Committee for the Suicide Prevention Resource Center (SPRC) and on the editorial board of the American Journal of Community Psychology.  She also serves as a grant reviewer for NIMH, NIDA, CDC, and SAMHSA. She recently served as a member of the scientific workgroup that worked with the Congressional Black Caucus’ Emergency Task Force on Suicide Prevention for Black Youth. In addition to her work in psychology, Dr. Molock and her husband, Guy Molock, Jr., are the founding pastors of the Beloved Community Church in Accokeek, Maryland. Their ministry focuses on “family healing” that is designed to bring spiritual, physical, and emotional healing to the community.

Watch the Recorded Webinar On-Demand

Enter your information to gain access.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form
  • This field is hidden when viewing the form

A Guide to Contextualizing the Reality of Systemic Racism and Black Suicidology

These past months, I have been engulfed in a haze of 24/7 media coverage. It began with the COVID-19 pandemic, filling me with increasing anxiety. The mortality rate for COVID-19 has been disproportionately affecting the African American, Latinx, and Indigenous communities.1 I worried about my family members whose positionality reflects comorbidities, older age, and minority populations. The hospitalization/death of family members and family friends has left me physically exhausted—experiencing insomnia and feeling mentally drained. I was still glued to the television when the recorded murder of George Floyd literally ignited America.

We Black professionals have learned how to master navigating through the murky waters of microaggressions and institutionalized oppression. Over a duration, I thought the clout of respectability politics – the discourse that professional minorities can rise above racism due to their professional status – would shield me from this. I was wrong. I have awakened, this week, with a complete comprehension of my positionality as a mental health professional, and a clear understanding of the context of suicide among Black Americans.

This article, the first in a series, is written with the objective of examining the social-political context of Black suicidology. We will examine the historical catalyst that has created the “perfect storm” of racial civil unrest and trauma within the Black community. The main goal is to understand how this impacts the growing trend of suicide among Black youth.2

Psychological Theories on Black Suicide

Postulated by Dr. Joy Degruy, the theory of Post-traumatic Slave Syndrome asserts that chattel slavery (which allowed people — considered legal property — to be bought, sold, and owned forever) left a legacy of intergenerational, psychological trauma on the descendants of enslaved Africans.3 It is represented in the current mental health crisis and racial disparities that we observe today. Another theorist, psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussaint, elaborates that the stigmatization of depression/suicide within the Black community, compounded with the minimalization of the mental health crisis by mental health professionals, constructs the current rise in suicide among Black boys and men.4 These scholars argue that suicide is a symptom of a larger trauma that Black people endure.

To enhance our comprehension of these theories, let us visualize the traumatic stress of the Black community in comparison to a rubber band. A moderate amount of stress, which is a natural reaction to stimuli within our environment, is intrinsically linked to our survival. Similarly, a rubber band is engineered to be elastic and handle a moderate amount of stress and tension. However, when too much force is exerted, without any release, the rubber band will snap.

In recent years, suicidal behavior among Black youth has significantly increased.5 As experts across a multitude of specialties continue to work in understanding the methodology behind this trend, we can look to previous and current events to paint a snapshot of what in the world is happening. In my opinion, the vicarious trauma experienced by the Black collective – because of repeated exposure to stress – has cultivated the internal and external stress that is currently present.

This stress is not random nor coincidental; it is systemic. African Americans have been funneled through imperialism, the trans-Atlantic slave trade, chattel slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights Movement, and a “post-racial” America. In between these defining moments, space has not been created to holistically heal and breathe.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which disproportionately impacts African Americans, has increased these tensions. African Americans mostly reside in densely populated cities. Their homes are often intergenerational and contain extended family. They are more likely to lack medical/mental health resources, preventive care, are overrepresented in the prison system, are essential/critical workers, have little to no sick time, and work under horrible working conditions. 6

These stresses are heightened by the political racial divide that has resurfaced as a result of the killings of Ahmaud Aubrey, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd. The global protest we are witnessing in this historical era is directed at police brutality. Within their lifetimes, Black boys and men are at the highest risk of being killed by police than any other racial group.7

The Role of Social Media

I think it is important to also understand the role social media plays in all of this. On one hand, it serves as a platform to facilitate the quick distribution of information to a large mass of individuals. This helps to circulate instances of police brutality and other discriminations to the masses, which helps mobilize movements within activism.

On the other hand, the lack of filtering violence has repeatedly exposed adolescents to images of brutalized Black bodies. You can easily find, as you scroll through your social media feed, at least one if not several uncensored videos or images of Black traumatization. For Generation Z, where technology and social media are embedded in their daily lives, these images may have adverse effects.

How does the repeated exposure to these images influence the psyche of Black youth? Does it correlate with or contribute to the increased suicidal behavior among Black youth? The present pandemic and police brutality together cultivate the conditions for a global protest and increase mental health dysfunctions that are currently apparent. Comparable to the upward trend of Black youth suicide, the disproportionate mortality rate of COVID-19 and police brutality may be linked to the systemic overlap of marginalization.

Connecting Systemic Racism to Black Youth Suicide

What does this all have to do with Black youth suicide? Black suicidology does not exist within a vacuum. It is situational and framed by a multitude of factors. Therefore, it is important to contextualize the collective experience. And in a society with a history of racial division, we cannot separate the system from the context. The growing trend of suicide among Black youth is a symptom of systemic racism and the systematic marginalization of Black experiences.

For example, a recent study documented that several White doctors hold racial beliefs that “Black people have physically tougher skin” and “have a higher pain threshold than White patients”.7 Perceived racial biases such as these contribute to the systematic mistreatment of Black people by the medical field. Black women have a maternal mortality rate that is three times higher than White women. ADHD Black youth are often underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed with Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD).9

Although Black youth are the fastest growing group within adolescents for suicidal behavior, Black people are underrepresented in suicide-related research and treatment, and as mental health professionals. The patterns that we are observing are conditioned upon institutionalized racism. How do we address Black suicide without acknowledging the whole system?

It is like a hive of hornets have built a nest in your attic, and instead of removing the whole nest, you spend your days and nights shooing away the hornets around you. The underlying causes of the problem persist.

The Role of Mental Health Professionals

The Black mental health crisis is a residual effect of a system that needs reforming. This state of emergency has been afire for over four-hundred years. What steps can we in the mental health field take to increase the efficacy of treatment for Black suicidal behavior?

When we address Black suicidology, it is essential to address the impact of racism on our clients’ experiences. It is essential to evaluate institutionalized oppression holistically – meaning, examine how housing, financial, economic, environmental, and other social factors directly impact your client. As we address and acknowledge systemic oppression, we as mental health professionals must strive to understand the whole picture.

I think that as mental health professionals it is our responsibility to acknowledge and strive to understand and act upon the uniqueness of the Black life experience. I conclude that there are five main components in reforming the ways we deal with racial disparities within Black suicidology.

  1. Provide more inclusive research. As with research in general, the general body of suicide research currently focuses on Whiteness. We need to fund more research tailored to addressing the unique experiences of Black people. We cannot be under the assumption that research impacts people of color similarly to Whites. It is essential to acknowledge and address how cultural/social differences should effect specialized nuances in assessment and treatment methodology.
  2. Integrate the community. The survival of Black America is built on community, family structure, and the church. To address suicide, we must meet clients where they are. As CAMS and other effective treatments understand, the individual is the expert on their own experience. People know what they need, and it is our objective to provide them with the tools and terminology for their mental health. For example, many in the Black community may describe suicidal behavior as a manifestation of physical pain (ex., “I’m feeling pain in my stomach” or “my head hurts”) or as a symptom of “strange” behavior (i.e., “my child is being lazy” or “her behavior has been changed”). Mental health professionals not versed in these cultural differences may dismiss, overlook, and misdiagnose their clients.
  3. Introduce accessible mental health services. Accessibility refers to providing services in communities of color and services that are affordable. We have discussed the political and social disparities that make accessible mental health services difficult. Accessibility is crucial in the struggle to combat suicide in the Black community.
  4. Fund evidence-based treatments that support multicultural therapy. There is limited research on the efficacy of treatments/therapies directed specifically towards Black trauma and suicide. We are not fully adept at understanding what works; however, of the literature available, treatments that are multicultural in nature are most effective with this community. Multicultural treatments integrate a collaborative (client-led) and community-centered approach.
  5. Educate and hire more Black mental health providers. Due to a history of medical/mental health racism, there is distrust of the mental health field by Black people.11 Is it fair to expect marginalized people to freely interact with a system they perceive to be oppressive? Instead, it is more beneficial to validate and empathize with our clients, and Black mental health providers are most inherently suited for this. Therefore, we need more Black mental health professionals who more likely possess an acute understanding of the lived experiences of those they are treating.

Next Steps

We are experiencing a shift in the American conscious. As Black Americans continue to deal with stressors of racism, mental health services are a necessity.

What is our responsibility in providing preventive measures and intervention to this community during these extraordinary times? How do we continue to address the growing trend of suicidal behavior among Black youth? What is our responsibility as mental health providers in comprehending the pain of our clients, colleagues, and students?

These questions form the basis of conversations that need to happen in our field, but it starts with acknowledging the reality of systemic racism, the impact of institutionalized marginalization and racial disparities, and the psychological toll it takes to survive.

References:

  1. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html
  2. Degruy, Joy. (2005). Post traumatic slave syndrome: America’s legacy of enduring injury and healing. Milwaukie, Oregon: Upton Press.
  3. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5070636
  4. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html
  5. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/need-extra-precautions/racial-ethnic-minorities.html
  6. https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793
  7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843483/

About the Author

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

See More Articles by this Author

About Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and the CAMS Framework® of Evidence-Based Suicide Prevention

Posted on by erics

I was recently reviewing some literature for a current study and happened to come across a newly published conceptual article by a scholar named Édua Holmström, who is at the University of Helsinki in Finland. The article was a marvel to me as Holmström’s paper uses the “Self Determination Theory” (SDT) to conceptually explain how the CAMS Framework of suicide prevention motivates suicidal individuals to choose life.

The Power of CAMS

Those who use the CAMS framework with suicidal patients already know that it first and foremost is based on empathy & honesty, and encourages your clients to work collaboratively with you to develop their unique suicide-focused treatment plans. This paper shines a light on this important element of the CAMS approach to treatment, and theorizes that this autonomy and acknowledgment of the client’s ability to make decisions about their own treatment plan is the key to the effectiveness of CAMS to clinically help save lives.

Applying Self-Determination Theory to CAMS

It turns out that SDT elegantly describes certain key aspects of this spirit and embodies the essence of doing CAMS as a collaborative and empathic therapeutic patient-centered framework. Within CAMS there is a clear and overt emphasis on respecting and validating the suicidal patient’s autonomy, a central construct within SDT. Writing about CAMS, Holmström notes “…many suicidal individuals make informed decisions about treatment with the support of an empathetic clinician.”

I could not agree more. And it is exhilarating to read the reflections of an unmet scholar in a faraway land applying a novel theory (at least to me) as explanatory for this evidence-based approach to suicide intervention that has consumed me over my entire professional career. Even after 35+ years in the field I cannot begin to describe the unabashed excitement I felt discovering this beautifully written paper about something that is so near and dear to my life’s work, and it got me thinking…

I often say to my students, “There are no new ideas, just repackaged old ones that capture enduring truths.” Over the years I have heard variations on this notion as it relates to CAMS. A seasoned and savvy inpatient nurse during a training session once told me that CAMS was nothing new, it was simply good nursing! She was delighted when I agreed and shared that I began my professional career on inpatient nursing staff as a psych tech. Her response? Of course, you did, I knew it! Some years later I had a similar conversation with a sophisticated clinical social worker who insisted that the essence of CAMS was merely doing good clinical social work!

Over decades I have come to relish many such conversations with clinicians across disciplines who have said in some way or another that they have been “doing CAMS” for years without realizing it. I think of my friend Kevin Briggs, who was a CHiPS highway patrolman for many years. His beat was the Golden Gate Bridge, and in his book, Guardian of the Golden Gate Bridge, Kevin recounts incredible experiences of talking suicidal of people out of jumping to their deaths from the iconic bridge. He could not save them all, but he literally did help save hundreds of lives. Over coffee, Kevin once told me that he used to lie down on the pavement to be at the same level with certain prospective jumpers sitting on a pipe on the other side of the railing so he could talk to them at their level. He asked me: So, was I doing CAMS? My response: Kevin, you are a natural!

Benefits of Evidence-Based Treatment

Many of my days are consumed with randomized controlled trials (RCTs), interpreting data, and writing scientific papers in my determined effort to prove that CAMS works through replicated RCTs with the highest rigor of science possible. It is my passion and my goal to well establish a solid place for CAMS within systems of care as a means of clinically saving lives for people on the brink of life.

But when I read this article from a faraway land explaining to me how my intervention works, it gave me pause to think. I reflected on many conversations over decades with clinicians about how to help save lives. And I reflected on some simple and enduring truths about life. Most people want to live a life with purpose and meaning; most do not desire death by suicide. But for those who do, simple ideas about autonomy, empathy, collaboration, and truth go a long way toward creating the possibility of saving a life, even in the face of suicidal despair. “Good nursing” or “good social work” can help transform lives and help people self-determine whether they live or die.

It is gratifying and humbling to see an outside source confirming the importance of self-determination concepts as potential cornerstones of CAMS.

The Gender Paradox of Suicide: How Suicide Differs Between Men, Women, and Transgender/Gender Diverse Individuals

Over the last 60 years, research in field of suicidology (the science of why people die by suicide) has produced a large body of knowledge, including identifying hundreds of risk factors and dozens of theories on cause. Multiple suicide prevention initiatives have also been tested during this time.

And while we’ve learned a lot, perhaps one of the most important aspects of study consistently present across the decades of research on suicide is what is commonly referred to as the gender paradox, or why men account for more suicide deaths than women. More recently, the question of gender in suicidal behavior has expanded to include transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. Here’s a look at the role gender plays in suicide.

What is the Gender Paradox of Suicide?

The traditional gender paradox of suicide is simple: Men die by suicide more often than women, even though women report thoughts of suicide more often and make more non-fatal suicide attempts than men. In fact, the data from research on the subject is quite striking.

CDC data demonstrates that men account for over 76% of suicide deaths in the United States each year. The CDC also found that there are 3.3 male suicide deaths for every female suicide death. In contrast, in research studies, women are two to three times more likely to discuss thoughts of suicide than men, and there are approximately three female suicide attempts per every one male suicide attempt.

Although rates of suicide are different across age groups (e.g., middle-age and older adults die by suicide more than younger adults) and race/ethnicity (e.g., non-Hispanic White and Indigenous individuals die by suicide more than people of Hispanic ethnicity and/or Black racial identity), the gender paradox remains true across other demographics.

These data points demonstrate a simple truth: men die by suicide far more than women, but women experience thoughts of suicide and attempt suicide more than men. So why does this gender disparity persist when it comes to suicidal thoughts vs suicidal behavior?

Why Do More Men Die by Suicide Than Women?

Certainly, answering this question would provide meaningful information on the broad nature of suicide. However, the findings from this line of research are far more complicated than the paradox itself.

One potential reason that men die more by suicide than women is that men, compared to women, appear to be more fearless of death and able to tolerate more physical pain. As such, they may have a higher capability of a lethal suicide attempt if thoughts of suicide develop. This understanding is fairly intuitive. If people do not fear death and can feel confident they can tolerate the pain associated with suicide, they may be more likely to follow through on a plan to die by suicide. This concept is a central component of the Interpersonal Theory of Suicide, which provides clear hypotheses about how the desire and capability for suicide develops and has been researched for almost 20 years.

This fearlessness of death and tolerance of pain may also explain one key finding within the gender paradox of suicide. Compared to women, men generally use more violent methods for suicide, such as suicide by firearm. For example, approximately 60% of male suicides are by firearm, whereas just over 30% of female suicides include self-inflicted gun violence. This finding is important, since suicide attempts by firearm result in death in nearly 90% of cases. With other suicide methods such as overdose, suffocation/hanging, and self-piercing/burning, death is the result in less than 10% of these cases.

This means that for many men, their first attempt at suicide is fatal, whereas women are more likely to live through a first attempt. In fact, less than half of men who die by suicide have a documented history of one or more previous suicide attempts, whereas well over 50% of women who die by suicide have attempted before.

Why Do Women Attempt Suicide More Than Men?

According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) women are 1.5 times more likely to attempt suicide than men. But why are suicide attempts so much higher in women while the mortality rate of suicide is 3 to 4 times higher in men? One potential answer lies in the different rates of deliberate self-harm (DSH) between men and women.

According to a Cambridge study on gender differences in suicide behavior, researchers found that DSH is more common in women. The study goes on to suggests that:

“Acts of DSH by females are more often based on non-suicidal motivation.” In females, the appeal function of DSH, whereby DSH is used to communicate distress or to modify the behavior and reactions of other people, seems more common. In males, DSH is more often associated with greater suicidal intent. It is interesting that in community samples, suicidal ideation is reported far more often by females than males and when DSH is found in men it more strongly correlates with suicide.”

Another important suicidal driver for women is major Depression. According to a Danish study, major depression is approximately “twice as common in females, and is known to underlie more than half of all suicides” which can potentially account for the increased rate of suicidal behaviors in women.

What About Transgender and Gender Diverse (TGD) People?

Although some of the above ideas may explain why the gender paradox of suicide exists, there is potentially a need to revise our understanding of the paradox as we begin to learn more about suicide in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals. For the sake of terminology, the term TGD refers to individuals whose sex assigned at birth (“natal sex”) does not match their own feelings about their gender, or “gender identity.” In this way, people who were deemed to be a man at birth (male natal sex) but feel as though their gender is not male (a gender identity of female or neither male/female, etc.), would fit under the umbrella term of TGD.

Our field’s understanding of the gender paradox of suicide was developed when most scholars viewed gender as a male/female binary. It has only been since the late 2000s that scholars have investigated suicide in those whose gender identity do not match their sex assigned at birth.

What Do We Know About Suicide in TGD Individuals?

As with the “why does the gender paradox exist” question, the answer is not simple. Some research suggests that TGD individuals whose sex assigned at birth was female may be at slightly higher risk for thoughts of suicide compared to those who were assigned male at birth, while other research has found the opposite relationship. More consistently, suicidal thoughts appear to be more prevalent in those TGD individuals who perceive their gender as neither male nor female (sometimes referred to as “non-binary”) compared to transgender men and transgender women (TGD individuals who view themselves as the male or female gender that is incongruent with their sex assigned at birth).

Like the relationship between suicidal thoughts and sex assigned at birth, the relationships between suicide attempt history and the TGD aspects of gender are murky at best. For example, as mentioned above, in relationship to suicide attempts, some research has found higher lifetime rates of attempts in TGD individuals with a female sex assigned at birth as compared to male sex assigned at birth. A roughly equal number of studies have found no relationship between sex assigned at birth and suicide attempt history.

A similar lack of consistent findings has been seen in studies comparing suicide attempt histories in those who identify within and outside of the gender binary. Simply put, there currently is no consistent research regarding the relationship between suicide attempt history and both natal sex and current gender identity in TGD individuals.

Suicide Attempts vs. Suicide Deaths

As you may notice, the paragraphs above note relationships with suicidal thoughts and attempts, not death by suicide. In fact, a very clear lack of research regarding death by suicide in TGD individuals can be seen in the research literature. Why is this? This answer is fairly simple: National rates of suicide are most often calculated using death certificates filed in each state.

These death certificates are most commonly completed by coroners and other medical certifiers, many of whom may not know a deceased individual identified as TGD. Also, early versions of these certificates only allowed for binary male/female gender identification. Thus, we do not know how the gender paradox “plays out” in TGD individuals as it relates to death by suicide.

So what do we know about death by suicide in TGD individuals? First and foremost, we know it is prevalent – and likely more prevalent than suicide in those who identify with their sex assigned at birth (“cisgender”). A study of all veterans who were given a gender-related diagnosis in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system between the years 2000-2009 indicated that TGD veterans died by suicide at over two times the rate of the national average of veteran suicide, and over six times the rate of the general population. This research corresponds with death records review in Denmark that demonstrates a higher suicide rate in their TGD versus cisgender population.

This study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2013 unfortunately did not contain additional information about sex assigned at birth or gender identity and relied on healthcare providers having asked questions regarding a gender-related diagnosis in order to have a record of TGD status in patient charts. Scholars argue that, because of these limitations, the estimates for suicide in TGD veterans may be underestimated.

Gender and Suicide Conclusions

For years, the gender paradox was quite simple: women think about and attempt suicide more than men, but more men die by suicide. This has been and continues to be true in basically all age groups and races/ethnicities.

Complexity to the paradox has been added over the last decade or so for two reasons:

  1. Scholars wanted to identify why this paradox existed
  2. Work with TGD individuals became more prominent.

It is likely that we will learn more over the next decades of research regarding why this paradox exists and if it can be extended to the understanding of suicide in TGD individuals.

Although it is simple in theory, the gender paradox is a great example of the complexity of why people die by suicide. There may be trends, risk factors, and consistencies across stories, but for those who die, there is great individual complexity in why and how. Although hundreds of risk factors play a role in predicting suicide, including sex assigned at birth and gender identity, the prevention of suicide in clinical settings will likely rely on far more than knowing basic demographic factors.

One’s own suicide story, reasons for living, reasons for dying, and visualized method of suicide are likely important and may only slightly be influenced by one’s sex assigned at birth/gender.

How CAMS Can Help

Clinical tools such as the Suicide Status Form (SSF), a critical component of the Collaborative Assessment and Management of Suicide (CAMS), exist to help providers and patients collaboratively determine one’s drivers for suicide that can be mitigated through intervention to reduce suicide risk. Regardless of a patient’s sex assigned at birth, gender, or even mental health diagnosis, the collaborative assessment of these individual factors may help clinicians and patients alike understand more about one’s suicide risk and how a future suicide attempt could be prevented. Recommendations for the integration of affirmative care practices into the CAMS Framework® have been published and can help guide providing CAMS to TGD individuals.

Learn more about how you can become CAMS Trained™ and CAMS Certified™ to provide an evidence-based suicide treatment framework with all of your patients, no matter their gender.

References:

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Suicide rising across the US.
  2. National Center for Biotechnology Information, The interpersonal theory of suicide: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a decade of cross-national research. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29072480
  3. Joiner, Ph.D., Thomas E., “Why Do People Die By Suicide” Lecture Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DESRIZtUIT4
  4. National Center for Biotechnology Information, Prevalence of gender identity disorder and suicide risk amount transgender veterans utilizing veterans health administration care. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23947310

About the Author

Raymond P. Tucker Ph.D.

Raymond P. Tucker Ph.D.
Raymond is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Louisiana State University (LSU) where he founded the Mitigation of Suicidal Behavior (MOSB) Laboratory in 2017. He also is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center /Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center. He finished his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Oklahoma State University in 2017 following his clinical internship at VA Puget Sound. Raymond's research broadly focuses on the enhancement of theoretical models of suicide and suicide risk assessment tools, particularly in underserved populations (e.g., Veterans, Transgender and Gender Diverse adults). Raymond began his tenure as a CAMS consultant in 2019 after receiving a state-level grant to implement CAMS across the Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge L.A. He is a former board member of the American Association of Suicidology and is a current faculty member at the National Suicidology Training Center.

See More Articles by this Author

About Raymond P. Tucker Ph.D.

Raymond P. Tucker Ph.D.
Raymond is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Louisiana State University (LSU) where he founded the Mitigation of Suicidal Behavior (MOSB) Laboratory in 2017. He also is a Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center /Our Lady of the Lake Medical Center. He finished his Ph.D. in clinical psychology from Oklahoma State University in 2017 following his clinical internship at VA Puget Sound. Raymond's research broadly focuses on the enhancement of theoretical models of suicide and suicide risk assessment tools, particularly in underserved populations (e.g., Veterans, Transgender and Gender Diverse adults). Raymond began his tenure as a CAMS consultant in 2019 after receiving a state-level grant to implement CAMS across the Our Lady of the Lake Regional Medical Center in Baton Rouge L.A. He is a former board member of the American Association of Suicidology and is a current faculty member at the National Suicidology Training Center.

The Importance of Acknowledging Cultural Differences and Validating the Experiences of Suicidal Minorities

One thing on which the United States of America prides itself is its foundation in and status as a “melting pot”, welcoming people of all races to our shores – and the USA is not unique in this way. All around our world, our communities encompass a colorful palette of races and social cultures, each with many unique collective experiences and perspectives.

These distinctive cultures make up many minority sets that have each developed their own cultural identities that differ (sometimes drastically) from “the norm”.

In our work with suicidal members of these communities, it may be tempting to gloss over these differences – especially if they make us uncomfortable. Furthermore, we’re often encouraged in society to practice “color blindness” in order to treat everyone equally and avoid any possibility of appearing racist, homophobic, politically incorrect, out of touch, or any other undesired label.

However, sweeping cultural differences under the rug and ignoring the unique experiences of suicidal minority patients undermines our ability to connect with our clients and build trust.

Acknowledging Cultural Differences

Instead of overlooking the cultural identities of suicidal ideators that differ from our own, acknowledging those differences – and even seeking to understand them – demonstrates interest in them as valid human beings and helps to build trust.

A few examples of how to acknowledge cultural differences with patients might include:

  • “Is that common to your culture? How does that work normally?”
  • “Hmm… now that’s a term I’m not familiar with. Can you explain it to me?”
  • “Ah, I didn’t know that. I’m glad to learn something new about your culture.”

Showing interest in culture and seeking to understand its inner workings and perspectives not only helps to foster rapport and trust, it may also help some clients better understand their own circumstances and how to incorporate those differences into a plan for reducing suicidal thoughts in their lives.

Validating Experiences

Equally important to acknowledging cultural differences is to affirm the validity of their unique experiences and feelings as a member of their minority. Validation does not simply mean that you understand or agree – it is the act of letting your clients know that you acknowledge, recognize, and support their experiences.

For example:

  • “I can tell that you’re uncomfortable talking about this, and that’s perfectly normal. It’s not easy to share sensitive things like this, but I want to understand your feelings. Can you keep going?”
  • “I can understand how being the only transgender person in your small town made you feel very alone and scared. I guess I would feel that way, too.”
  • “I imagine that can’t be very easy to deal with. Can you share more about how that makes you feel when that happens?”

It’s not always easy to talk about deeply personal experiences with a therapist, so be sure to thank the person for sharing with you.

Incorporating these two practices into therapeutic sessions will go a long way in establishing trust and building rapport with our suicidal minority clients.

For more information

To learn more about effective methods for working with suicidal minorities, read “5 Effective Approaches When Working with Minority Clients” by Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis, M.A.

About the Author

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.

See More Articles by this Author

About Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.

Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis M.A.
Tanisha Esperanza Jarvis received her B.A. in anthropology and sociology at Spelman College in 2015, where she also minored in Comparative Women’s Studies. While at Spelman, her research focused on integrating academia and social justice. As a Bonner Scholar and Social Justice Fellow her research work included preventative and interventional treatment of sexual trauma and LGBTQ and racial/ethnic minority research. She finished her M.A. in psychological sciences from The Catholic University of America (CUA) in 2019. Her research within the Suicide Prevention Lab (SPL) focused on integrating an international approach to CAMS research and treatment of suicidality within marginalized communities.