- Protocol is a useful contribution to Chinese emergency departments' management of repeat suicide risk.
- Clarify mixed-methods design labelling inconsistency and resolve the minor numerical discrepancy in protocol revision count.
- Reassess interpretation of Kendall's W as evidence of high consensus and incorporate patient and family lived-experience contributors in all phases.
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2026 Jun;35(3):e70291. doi: 10.1111/inm.70291.
ABSTRACT
The protocol developed by Tan et al. (2026) for managing repeat suicide risk in Chinese emergency departments is a useful contribution. Three methodological points, however, deserve clarification: an inconsistency in how the mixed-methods design is labelled, the interpretation of Kendall’s W as indicating high consensus, and the absence of patient and family lived-experience contributors from both the qualitative and Delphi phases. A minor numerical discrepancy in the protocol revision count is also flagged.
PMID:42298869 | DOI:10.1111/inm.70291
Share Evidence Blueprint
Save to Google Notes

Search Google Scholar
Save as PDF

