CEFS 620 Week 6 DB Forum 3 Example

Discussion Board Forum 3: Thread and Two Replies

CEFS 620 Counseling Children, Adolescents, and Their Families, Discussion Board Forum 3 (thread and two replies)

Thread by [Student Name]

The prompt and the classmates' posts are composites standing in for the course's own forum; the textbooks, Scripture and published studies are real, and every journal source is from the last five years as the guide requires; the requirements follow Liberty's public course guide for CEFS 620.

Thread

Few causes of death take more adolescents in the United States than suicide does, and school and agency counselors see young people at risk constantly. Risk often builds from experiences that adults can see. Pooling 42 studies covering 266,888 young people, Li et al. (2024) found that young people bullied in person, online or in both ways were more likely than others to report suicidal thoughts and attempts, self-harm and depression. McWhirter et al. (2017) describe suicidal behavior as the end of a pathway in which isolation, hopelessness and stressors accumulate, which is why prevention has to begin before a crisis.

School-based programs reach the most students. Gijzen et al. (2022), in a meta-analysis of 11 studies with 23,230 participants, found small effects of school-based prevention programs on suicidal ideation (g = 0.15) and on suicidal behavior (g = 0.30) at post-test, and small but significant effects three to twelve months later. Programs that targeted known risk factors such as depression were about as effective for ideation as programs focused on suicide directly, which may make prevention easier to introduce in schools where talking about suicide is resisted. The authors caution that the studies varied widely, so the size of the benefit in any one school is uncertain.

For students already at risk, safety planning has stronger evidence for behavior. Nuij et al. (2021), in a meta-analysis of six studies with 3,536 participants, found that safety planning-type interventions reduced the relative risk of suicidal behavior to 0.57 compared with control conditions, a reduction of about 43 percent, with a number needed to treat of 16. They found no significant effect on suicidal ideation, which suggests that a safety plan helps a young person act differently in a crisis even if the thoughts remain.

The two kinds of evidence point to a layered approach: universal programs to lower risk across the school, and individual safety plans for students who screen positive. Cook-Cottone et al. (2015) emphasize that work with young clients involves families and schools, and a safety plan is most useful when parents and a trusted school adult know it and can help carry it out.

Elijah, exhausted and asking to die, was given food, rest and a renewed sense of purpose (English Standard Version Bible, 2001/2016, 1 Kings 19:4-8). Counselors can offer young people in despair the same practical care, attending to sleep, safety and connection before anything else.

Classmates: how would you involve parents in a safety plan when the student is reluctant to tell them?

Reply to Caleb

Caleb, you proposed training every teacher in your school to recognize warning signs and refer students to the counselor, which would multiply the number of adults watching for risk. That training is valuable, and research suggests teachers can do more than refer. Brar et al. (2023) found in a statewide survey of eleventh graders that students more connected to school staff reported fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety, a pattern that held for students who had faced dating violence. Depression is one of the strongest risk factors for suicidal thinking, so a trusted adult at school may protect students long before they show warning signs.

So I would pair your gatekeeper training with a measurable aim, that each student can name a staff member they trust. Teachers who build those relationships may hear about a struggle earlier, when a referral can still prevent a crisis. Training could therefore include not only warning signs but also simple ways to connect, such as greeting students by name and checking in after an absence, which cost nothing and take little time from instruction.

How would you identify students who have no trusted adult at school, and who on the staff would reach out to them first?

Reply to Hannah

Hannah, you emphasized follow-up after a student returns to school from an emergency evaluation, and you recommended weekly check-ins with the school counselor for the first month. That plan addresses one of the riskiest periods. I would add families to it. Dippel et al. (2022) found, across 17 trials of youth depression treatment, that bringing caregivers in added a modest but reliable gain over the same treatment delivered to the young person alone. Because depression often accompanies suicidal thinking, involving parents in the student's ongoing care may strengthen the effect of the check-ins.

In practice, the counselor could meet with the parents and student together in the first week to review the safety plan, agree on how the school and family will communicate, and make sure the parents know the warning signs. Parents who understand the plan can support it at home, where most crises begin. The meeting is also a chance to ask about stressors at home and to connect the family with outpatient care if the student does not already have it, so that school check-ins supplement treatment rather than replace it.

Would your school's policies allow the counselor to share the safety plan with parents when the student objects?

References

Brar, P., Shramko, M., Taylor, S., & Eisenberg, M. E. (2023). The moderating influence of school adult connectedness on adolescent dating violence and mental health. Journal of School Health, 93(4), 297-304. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.13268

Cook-Cottone, C. P., Kane, L. S., & Anderson, L. M. (2015). The elements of counseling children and adolescents. Springer Publishing.

Dippel, N., Szota, K., Cuijpers, P., Christiansen, H., & Brakemeier, E.-L. (2022). Family involvement in psychotherapy for depression in children and adolescents: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 95(3), 656-679. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12392

English Standard Version Bible. (2016). Crossway. (Original work published 2001)

Gijzen, M. W. M., Rasing, S. P. A., Creemers, D. H. M., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Smit, F. (2022). Effectiveness of school-based preventive programs in suicidal thoughts and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 298, 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.10.062

Li, C., Wang, P., Martin-Moratinos, M., Bella-Fernández, M., & Blasco-Fontecilla, H. (2024). Traditional bullying and cyberbullying in the digital age and its associated mental health problems in children and adolescents: A meta-analysis. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(9), 2895-2909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-022-02128-x

McWhirter, J. J., McWhirter, B. T., McWhirter, E. H., & McWhirter, A. C. (2017). At risk youth (6th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Nuij, C., van Ballegooijen, W., de Beurs, D., Juniar, D., Erlangsen, A., Portzky, G., O'Connor, R. C., Smit, J. H., Kerkhof, A., & Riper, H. (2021). Safety planning-type interventions for suicide prevention: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 219(2), 419-426. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2021.50