The Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale (C-SSRS) is a predominant tool for screening and scoring suicidal ideation and behaviour to identify individuals at risk. No meta-analysis has examined its predictive significance.

To evaluate the C-SSRS assessment of suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour as predictors of future fatal and non-fatal suicide attempts.

A systematic search of Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and Health and Psychosocial Instruments databases was conducted from January 2008 to February 2024. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed, and the study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022361944). Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Pooled odds ratios were calculated using random-effects models, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 statistic. Publication bias was evaluated with Egger’s test and funnel plots.

The search identified 1071 unique records, of which 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis included 27 studies with independent samples. Suicidal behaviour (pooled odds ratio 3.14, 95% CI 1.86–5.31) and suicide attempts (pooled odds ratio 2.78, 95% CI 1.82–4.24) were predictors of future non-fatal suicide attempts. Suicidal ideation severity (odds ratio 1.46/point, 95% CI 1.28–1.77) was a stronger predictor of future non-fatal suicide attempts than suicideal ideation intensity (odds ratio 1.11/point, 95% CI 1.04–1.18). Two studies linked higher suicidal ideation severity and a history of suicidal behaviour with an increased risk of fatal suicide attempts, though meta-analysis was not feasible for only two studies.

Suicidal behaviour, suicide attempts and to a lesser extent suicidal ideation, identified using the C-SSRS, predicted future non-fatal suicide attempts. These findings support the use of the C-SSRS to detect individuals at higher-risk requiring enhanced preventive interventions.

Despite an elevated risk of psychopathology stemming from COVID-19-related stress, many essential workers stigmatise and avoid psychiatric care. This randomised controlled trial was designed to compare five versions of a social-contact-based brief video intervention for essential workers, differing by protagonist gender and race/ethnicity.

We examined intervention efficacy on treatment-related stigma (‘stigma’) and openness to seeking treatment (‘openness’), especially among workers who had not received prior mental healthcare. We assessed effectiveness and whether viewer/protagonist demographic concordance heightened effectiveness.

Essential workers (N = 2734) randomly viewed a control video or brief video of an actor portraying an essential worker describing hardships, COVID-related anxiety and depression, and psychotherapy benefits. Five video versions (Black/Latinx/White and male/female) followed an identical 3 min script. Half the intervention group participants rewatched their video 14 days later. Stigma and openness were assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and at 14- and 30-day follow-ups. Trial registration: NCT04964570.

All video intervention groups reported immediately decreased stigma (P < 0.0001; Cohen's d = 0.10) and increased openness (P < 0.0001; d = 0.23). The initial increase in openness was largely maintained in the repeated-video group at day 14 (P < 0.0001; d = 0.18), particularly among viewers without history of psychiatric treatment (P < 0.0001; d = 0.32). Increases were not sustained at follow-up. Female participants viewing a female protagonist and Black participants viewing a Black protagonist demonstrated greater openness than other demographic pairings.

Brief video-based interventions improved immediate stigma and openness. Greater effects among female and Black individuals viewing demographically matched protagonists emphasise the value of tailored interventions, especially for socially oppressed groups. This easily disseminated intervention may proactively increase care-seeking, encouraging treatment among workers in need. Future studies should examine intervention mechanisms and whether linking referrals to psychiatric services generates treatment-seeking.