${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.

85

Research Trends

Contemporary Classifications
of Suicidal Behaviors
A Systematic Literature Review
Benjamin Goodfellow1,2 , Kairi Kõlves1, and Diego De Leo1

Australian Institute of Suicide Research and Prevention, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research in
1

Suicide Prevention and Training, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, Australia

2
Centre Hospitalier Albert Bousquet, Nouméa, New Caledonia

Abstract. Background: The absence of agreed-upon terminology, definitions, and operational classifications has hampered research in the field
of suicidology for many decades. Aims and Method: We systematically reviewed contemporary classifications of suicidal behavior using the
scope of the classification (comprehensive vs. restricted or single behaviors), and the presence or absence of a classification scheme and an
operational definition of intent as features to enable analysis and comparison. Results: A chronological perspective shows that classification
systems tend to be more and more precise and operational for clinical and research field work. However, on an international level, the develop-
ment of classifications appears to precede the establishment of agreed-upon definitions and terms to describe suicidal behavior. Limitations:
The review was conducted in English only. Conclusion: Universal agreement on definitions and terms for suicidal behavior should precede the
development of classifications.

Keywords: classification, suicidal behavior, definition, nomenclature

The lack of an internationally agreed-upon set of defini-
tions and terms, or an agreed-upon classification to de-
scribe and categorize the whole spectrum of suicidal ide-
ation and behavior, has hindered research in the field of
suicidology for many years (Silverman & De Leo, 2016).
As a contribution to the International Association for Sui-
cide Prevention Task Force on Nomenclature and Classifi-
cation’s 10-step plan – “reviewing existing nomenclatures,
definitions, and classification systems” (Silverman & De
Leo, 2016, p. 85) – this review systematically examines
existing classifications of suicidal behavior. It follows two
previous studies by the same authors (Goodfellow, Kõlves,
& De Leo, 2018, 2019) reviewing nomenclatures and defi-
nitions of suicidal behaviors, respectively.
O’Carroll et al. (1996) stated that a classification
scheme:
Implies … comprehensiveness; a systematic arrangement of
items in groups or categories with ordered, nested subcatego-
ries; scientific … validity; exhaustiveness; accuracy sufficient
for research or clinical practice; and an unambiguous set of
rules for assigning items to a single place in the classification
scheme. (p. 240)
behaviors and not of motivations or any circumstantial
details not part of the act or behavior itself. We did not in-
clude classifications that were explicative in nature (i.e.,
that implied an etiological theory). In this article we thus
refer to descriptive classifications (i.e., that do not imply eti-
ology) when using the word classification.
Method
We followed the PRISMA Statement (Moher, Libera-
ti, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). The PRISMA Flowchart is
available as Electronic Supplementary Material 1 and ad-
ditional information is available from the corresponding
author. The first author screened all abstracts and select-
ed relevant papers, and final consensus about selecting
papers to be included in the review was reached with the
other authors.
Search Strategy

As detailed herein, our systematic review is related to An Internet-based search of Social Science Citation Index,
this definition of classification. We limited our attention CINAHL, PubMed, and Scopus was conducted for Eng-
to classification systems that were descriptive of acts and lish-language papers between 1966 and November 21,

© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Crisis 2019

https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622
 2 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85
2018. Search terms were as follows: (Suicid* OR Self-harm)
AND (Definition and Terminology and Classification).
Inclusion Criteria
In total, 10,255 papers with duplicates were identified,
and 5,933 papers remained after removal of duplicates.
After perusal of titles and abstracts, 26 potentially relevant
papers remained. Reference lists were checked for any
other papers, books, book sections, or reports. Ten more
references were found in this way. After reading 36 full pa-
pers, 18 papers were considered as relevant for this review.
Criteria for relevance were that the paper should present
an original classification system of the authors’ own con-
ception, a modification of a previous classification that
changed its logical nature, or an item or set of items to be
added to an existing classification. As noted earlier, classi-
fications had to be descriptive of acts or behaviors and not
based on motivation, context, or explicative in nature.
Data Extraction
The following data were extracted for each paper: au-
thor(s), year, name of the proposed classification, main
terms of the classification, and presence of a classification
scheme.
Results
A total of 19 descriptive classification systems or single be-
haviors were found, presented in 18 different papers, manu-
als, or online resources published between 1968 and 2016.
The classifications are presented in Table 1 in chronological
order to make apparent their development. The main cat-
egories of classifications are also presented. Among these
19 classifications, we distinguished three types: compre-
hensive classification systems, restricted classification sys-
tems, and suicidal behaviors to be added to existing classi-
fications. The first type refers to 10 classification systems
for which authors aim to be exhaustive in terms of suicidal
behaviors and acts. The second type refers to six classifica-
tions that are also organized into a system; however, not an
exhaustive one. They describe either a subtype of behavior
(e.g., nonlethal behaviors) or a group of behaviors. The third
and last type refers to three suicidal behaviors or disorders
to be added to pre-existing classification systems. These sui-
cidal behaviors were included in this review as they obey the
same logic of classification, and because they could modify
the logical organization of pre-existing classifications.
Crisis 2019
As illustrated in Table 1, 14 classifications (two items for
American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) include a
classification scheme and five do not. We derived our defi-
nition of a scheme from the definition of a classification
scheme by O’Carroll et al. (1996, p 240): that is, “ … an un-
ambiguous set of rules for assigning items to a single place
in the classification scheme” (our italics). We thus defined
a classification scheme as an unambiguous set of rules that
guides a rater in the process of classification, and thus as
distinct from the classification itself. The level of detail and
precision in the rules comprised in these schemes is highly
variable and we decided that even quite superficial sets of
rules would qualify as schemes in our review. The schemes
had to include at least some illustrative case examples, a
figure (e.g., a decision tree), or a walk-through of the pro-
cess of classification, all of which aimed at helping a rater
use the proposed classification.
Comprehensive Classification Systems
Devries (1968) proposed a predictive classification of sui-
cidal behaviors or processes as opposed to acts, following
a dynamic approach to behavior. He illustrated his catego-
ries using clinical examples. However, no precise opera-
tional definitions of basic categories were given.
Cohen (1969) similarly described a dynamic process he
called suicidopathy. He distinguished three clinical mani-
festations called suicidation (mental process), suicidaction
(behavioral process), and self-assault (resulting in physical
trauma) that were part of a continuous process and de-
fined each manifestation. Cohen suggested that his cate-
gories be “appended to the primary psychiatric diagnosis”
(p. 67).
Beck and colleagues (1973) elaborated a classification
comprising precise definitions of basic concepts (complet-
ed suicide, suicide attempt, and suicidal ideas) and a list of
modifiers for each category that were also precisely de-
fined. The authors provided a simple but clear classifica-
tion scheme illustrated by three case examples, and intent
was operationally defined.
In a brief letter, Perr (1979) suggested adding suicide
disorders as a diagnostic category to the third version of
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM) and suggested four subdivisions: suicidal ideation,
suicidal gesture, suicidal act, and suicide, completed. He did
not define these terms.
Ellis (1988) attempted to integrate all previous efforts at
classification and elaborated a multidimensional classifi-
cation including descriptive, situational, psychological, and
teleological dimensions. The descriptive dimension includ-
ed a classification system based on the following criteria:
suicidal behavior, method, lethality, communication, other
© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing
 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors 3
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85

Table 1. Contemporary descriptive classifications for suicidal behaviors

Classification
Author(s), date Name of classification Main categories of classification Type of classification scheme
Devries, 1968 An Operational • Normal Comprehensive Yes
­Classification of Sui- • Emotionally disturbed
cidal Behaviors • Suicidal ideation
• Threatened suicide
• Attempted suicide
• Committed suicide
Litman, 1968 Classification of De- • First-degree suicide Restricted Yes
grees of Suicide • Second-degree suicide
• Third-degree suicide
• Lack of capacity for intention
• Self-negligence
• “Justifiable” suicide
Cohen, 1969 Suicidopathy • Suicidation Comprehensive No
• Suicidaction
• Self-assault
Beck et al., Classification of Sui- • Completed suicide Comprehensive Yes
1973 cidal Behaviors • Suicide attempt
• Suicidal ideas
Perr, 1979 Suicide Disorders • Suicidal ideation Comprehensive No
• Suicidal gesture
• Suicidal act
• Suicide, completed
Ellis, 1988 Dimensions of Suicidal behavior Comprehensive No
Self-Destructive • Suicide
­Behavior (Descriptive) • Parasuicide
• Ideation only
• Self-destructive behavior without conscious intent

Teleological (intent/motivation)
• Instrumental
• Cessation
• Unknown/impulse
Rosenberg Operational Criteria for • Suicide Restricted Yes
et al., 1988 the Determination of
Suicide
Lester, 1990 A Classification of Acts • Failed suicide Restricted No
of Attempted Suicide • Deliberate self-harm
• Subintentioned self-harm
• Counterproductive self-harm
• Pseudo self-harm
O’Carroll et al., Suicide-Related • Suicidal ideation Comprehensive Yes
1996 Thoughts and • Suicidal behaviors
­Behaviors • Instrumental suicide-related behaviors (ISRB; i.e.;
suicide threat, other ISRB, accidental death associ-
ated with ISRB)
• Suicidal act (suicide attempt, suicide)
Barber et al., Aborted Suicide • Aborted suicide attempt Suicidal behavior to Yes
1998 Attempt be added to existing
classification
Shah, Ganes­ A Possible Clinical Suicidal intent Restricted Yes
varan, 1999 Classification for the • Ambivalent
Psychopathology of • Concealed
Suicidal Intent • Mixed type
• Continuous type

table continued next page

© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing Crisis 2019

 4 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85

Table 1. continued

Classification
Author(s), date Name of classification Main categories of classification Type of classification scheme
Brown et al. Classification of • Definite suicide attempt Restricted No
2006 Suicide Attempts and • Possible suicide attempt
Self-Injurious Behavior • Intentional self-injurious Behavior without suicide
intent
• Possible/potential self-injurious behavior without
suicide intent
• Suicide ideation
• Possible suicide ideation
Posner et al., Columbia Classification Suicidal events Comprehensive Yes
2007 Algorithm of Suicide • Completed suicide
Assessment (C-CASA) • Suicide attempt
• Preparatory acts toward imminent suicidal behavior
• Suicidal ideation

Nonsuicidal events
• Self-injurious behavior, no suicidal intent

Other
• No deliberate self-harm

Indeterminate or potentially suicidal events

• Self-injurious behavior, suicide intent unknown
• Not enough information
Silverman Suicide-Related • Suicide-related ideations Comprehensive Yes
et al., 2007 Thoughts and • Suicide-related communications (threat, plan)
­Behaviors • Suicide-related behaviors (self-harm, undetermined
suicide-related behavior, suicide attempt, suicide)
Brenner et al., Self-Directed Violence Thoughts Comprehensive Yes
2011 Classification System • Nonsuicidal self-directed violence ideation
(SDVCS) • Suicidal ideation

Behaviors
• Preparatory
• Nonsuicidal self-directed violence
• Undetermined self-directed violence
• Suicidal self-directed violence
Fedyszyn et al., Classification O’Carroll et al. (1996) nomenclature items Comprehensive Yes
2012 ­Algorithm for the • Suicidal Ideation
­Determination of • Suicide-related behavior
Suicide Attempt and • Instrumental suicide-related behavior
Suicide (CAD-SAS) • Suicidal act
American Diagnostic and • Suicidal behavior disorder Suicidal behaviors to Yes
Psychiatric ­Statistical Manual • Nonsuicidal self-injury be added to existing
Association, of Mental Disorders classification
2013 (DSM-V)
World Health International Classifi- Intentional self-poisoning Restricted Yes
Organization, cation of Diseases 10th Intentional self-harm
2016 revision (ICD-10)

victims, and prior attempts/threats/ideation. He also provid-
ed a classification of intent and motivations as part of the
teleological dimension.
In 1996, O’Carroll and colleagues (1996) proposed a
classification system that they called a nomenclature but
which, however, can be considered a classification as per
their own definition, cited in the previous section. It com-
prised nine precisely defined categories and subcategories
based on available evidence.
A little more than 10 years later, Posner, Oquendo, Gould,
Stanley, and Davies (2007) elaborated the Columbia Classi-
fication Algorithm of Suicide Assessment (C-CASA) to ana-
lyze suicide risk related to antidepressant use in a pediatric
population. It was clearly aimed at standardized rating and

Crisis 2019 © 2019 Hogrefe Publishing

 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85
comprised an exhaustive system of precise categories with a
complete rating guide and training package. Definitions used
included those of the O’Carroll et al. nomenclature (1996).
The same year, Silverman, Berman, Sanddal, O’Carroll,
and Joiner (2007), many of whom were the same authors
as those who developed the O’Carroll et al. (1996) classi-
fication, elaborated a new classification based on the older
one. It comprised 11 basic categories and subcategories
and the most significant change was the addition of a su-
icidal communication category.
Brenner et al. (2011) proposed the Self-Directed Violence
Classification System (SDVCS) based on the Self-Directed
Violence Surveillance system developed by the American
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Crosby, Orte-
ga, & Melanson, 2011). This comprehensive classification
comprised a set of precisely and operationally defined cat-
egories, which were based on those of pre-existing nomen-
clatures (such as by O’Carroll et al., 1996). Matarazzo et al.
(2012) later provided a crosswalk between the SDVCS and
the C-CASA.
Fedyszyn, Harris, Robinson, and Paxton (2012) pro-
posed the Classification Algorithm for the Determination
of Suicide Attempt and Suicide (CAD-SAS) They provided
a very clear classification scheme comprising precise defi-
nitions (those of O’Carroll et al. 1996) and a set of clas-
sification rules in the form of decision trees. The authors
explained that their focus was on research.
Restricted Classification Systems
Litman (1968) proposed a classification of suicide as part
of a classification of modes of death. He distinguished
first-, second-, third-degree suicide, lack of capacity for inten-
tion, self-negligence, and “justifiable” suicide, based on vari-
ous degrees of intentionality.
On the same topic of fatal suicidal behavior, Rosenberg
and colleagues (1988) published the Operational Criteria
for the Determination of Suicide (OCDS) to standardize
methods for classifying suicides and promote reliable su-
icide statistics for research and prevention. The paper pro-
vided a complete method to determine evidence of self-in-
fliction and intent.
Regarding nonfatal suicidal behavior, the aim of Lester’s
(1990) classification was to bring more detail in terms of
knowledge (is self-harm foreseen?) and intent (is self-harm
desired?) to the classification of acts previously classified
as attempted suicide or parasuicide. Categories were the
following: failed suicide, deliberate self-harm, subintentioned
self-harm, counterproductive self-harm, and pseudo self-harm.
On the basis of a case study of deceased suicide inpa-
tients, Shah and Ganesvaran (1999) proposed a classifica-
tion of clinical manifestations of intent, and attempted a
© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing
5
validation process. They distinguished between ambiva-
lent, concealed, mixed type, and continuous type of suicidal
intent, and defined each one of them.
Also, in the field of nonfatal suicidal behavior, Brown,
Jeglic, Henriques, and Beck (2006) proposed what they
called a classification scheme based on evidence (definite,
uncertain/potential, none) of intent and self-injurious be-
havior. They distinguished definite, possible suicide attempt,
intentional self-injurious behavior without suicide intent, pos-
sible/potential self-injurious behavior without suicide intent,
suicide ideation, and possible suicide ideation. They did not
provide their own operational definition of evidence; how-
ever, they did recommend use of existing scales.
In a more general frame, the 10th revision of the Inter-
national Classification of Diseases (ICD-10, World Health
Organization [WHO], 2016) was adopted in 1990 by the
World Health Assembly and its current version was updat-
ed in 2016. The successive versions of ICD-10 from 2003
(second edition) to the current version (2016) included
purposely self-inflicted poisoning or injury and suicide (at-
tempted). Method categories were grouped under intention-
al self-poisoning and intentional self-harm. The ICD-10 did
not provide a set of rules to determine intent or lethality.
Suicidal Behaviors to Be Added to
Existing Classifications
Barber, Marzuk, Leon, and Portera (1998) introduced the
aborted suicide attempt category to help predict suicide.
The authors constructed a scale in order to test it and de-
vised a set of rules to correctly classify that behavior during
a retrospective study. This category was later integrated
into Posner and colleagues’ (2007) C-CASA.
Similarly, the American Psychiatric Association (APA,
2013) proposed two new diagnostic entities called suicidal
behavior disorder (p. 801) and nonsuicidal self-injury (p. 803)
in the chapter “Conditions for Further Study” in the fifth
version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM-V). In previous versions of the DSM, suicid-
al behavior was considered a symptom of several psychiatric
disorders (e.g., borderline personality disorder). The authors
suggested a full range of criteria for classifying behaviors.
The Issue of Intent
All authors we cited except one mentioned intent as cen-
tral to the definition of the different categories in their
proposed classifications. However, some gave a practical
method to determine the level or some aspect of intent
and others did not. In most cases, those that did included a
classification scheme.
Crisis 2019
 6 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85
Most of the early authors (e.g., Devries, 1968; Cohen,
1969; Perr, 1979; Ellis, 1988) pointed to the difficulty
of providing an operational definition of suicidal intent
or tried to avoid it. Other authors (e.g., Lester, 1990, and
Brown et al., 2006) attempted to detail the concept of in-
tent but provided no direct method to determine it.
All other authors (APA, 2013; Barber et al., 1998; Beck
et al., 1973; Brenner et al., 2011; Fedyszyn et al., 2012;
Litman, 1968; O’Carroll et al., 1996; Posner et al., 2007;
Rosenberg et al., 1988; Shah & Ganesvaran, 1999; Sil-
verman et al., 2007) provided a more or less detailed and
practical method to determine intent in their classifica-
tion scheme. A notable exception was the ICD 10 (WHO,
2016), for which no definition of intent was proposed.
Discussion
Taking a chronological perspective suggests that the first
attempts at classification aimed at comprehensiveness on
a theoretical level, with less emphasis on the operational
aspect, as illustrated by Devries’s (1968), Cohen’s (1969),
Perr’s (1979), and Ellis’s (1988) proposals. It would appear
that most efforts were concentrated on the organization of
ideas, before drawing direct correlates with observable re-
ality. The notable exception to this was Beck and cowork-
ers’ (1973) classification, which clearly aimed at compre-
hensiveness but also at being a practical tool to be used in
research and clinical settings, or at least serving as a basis
for developing such tools.
The later-period classifications more regularly included
a scheme, pointing to a higher preoccupation with practi-
cality, and with testing the validity of constructs. The de-
velopment of these schemes was also significant. From
Beck et al. (1973) to Rosenberg and coworkers’ OCDS
(1988), all the way to the CAD-SAS of Fedyszyn et al.
(2012), classification schemes have become more and
more precise and practical. Some authors concentrated on
single items, others on a restricted part of the whole spec-
trum of suicidal behaviors. Two recent proposals are worth
highlighting, however, as they aimed at both comprehen-
siveness and practicality: the C-CASA (Posner et al., 2007)
and the SDVCS (Brenner et al., 2011).
The contribution of public administrations was signifi-
cant in the two latter examples. On the one hand, the Amer-
ican FDA helped develop the C-CASA with a focus on sec-
ondary effects of drugs, and on the other the CDC did the
same with the SDVCS with the aim of developing efficient
surveillance systems for the American population. This con-
tribution could favor the development of valid categories.
On another level, it is significant that the two main clas-
sification systems used in mental health around the world,
Crisis 2019
namely, the DSM (APA, 2013) and the ICD (WHO, 2016),
did not incorporate any comprehensive classification of su-
icidal behavior. The DSM is a diagnostic manual, which was
specifically designed to help diagnose and classify disor-
ders. The APA’s two recent proposals incorporated suicidal
behavior into disorders (i.e., the suicidal behavior disorder
and nonsuicidal self-injury). This incorporation could have
significant economic consequences, as disorders in DSM
serve as a reference for American public and private health
insurers, and for drug companies as a basis for pharmaco-
logical studies. The existing comprehensive classifications
of suicidal behaviors aim at organizing a complex reality
made of subtle differences into sets of precisely and uni-
versally defined categories, not diagnoses. They also aim
at standardizing terminology and definitions, and the field
of suicidology is far from reaching consensus in this area
(Silverman & De Leo, 2016). Thus, the question remains
as to how one can define a disorder or propose a “condi-
tion for further study” when there is not universal agree-
ment about how the behaviors that characterize them are
defined. Psychiatric disorders in DSM are supposed to be
universal; however, the underlying definitions of suicidal
behavior are not.
The WHO (2016) proposed a classification of self-­
poisoning and self-harm essentially on the basis of method
without proposing any definition of intent. This may be the
only reasonable position in a field of health where there is
very little consensus. On the other hand, this position does
not favor consensus, and in our view, all efforts should be
made to not permanently accept this limited approach to
classification.
The two main classifications of mental disorders thus
contradict each other on a fundamental level. This preoc-
cupying situation directly relates to the confusion and lack
of consensus on definitions and terms in the field of sui-
cidology. The APA, CDC, FDA, and WHO interest in the
field of classification may help advance scientific validity,
but it may favor a useless and perilous rush to create classi-
fications before a universal consensus on underlying con-
structs is attained.
Limitations
The distinction between classifications and nomenclatures
has been detailed elsewhere (Goodfellow et al., 2018;
O’Carroll et al., 1996). Basically, nomenclatures aim at
communication, and classifications are more detailed and
aim at scientific validity. However, some authors use the
term nomenclature, others the term classification to de-
scribe their contribution, and their appreciation is some-
times not quite in line with the above distinction. Indeed,
© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing
 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85
we included some nomenclatures in this article as per the
authors’ own definitions owing to a high level of precision
and the presence of a classification scheme. Nevertheless,
we decided to follow the authors’ opinions as much as pos-
sible and err on the side of inclusivity. Some classifications
were thus included that could be called nomenclatures as
per the definition by O’Carroll et al. (1996).
Our review was limited to descriptive classifications.
Indeed, we realized that classifications based on other as-
pects were heterogeneous and therefore did not have utili-
ty as a basis for attaining a universal agreement. The pres-
ent review was restricted to English-language publications
only. Further research should concentrate on international
linguistic and cultural aspects of classification. The time
frame was also limited to contemporary publications. A
review of older classifications may provide valuable histor-
ical insights on the subject.
Conclusion
We systematically reviewed contemporary classifications
of suicidal behavior as opposed to nomenclatures that were
reviewed elsewhere (Goodfellow et al., 2018). We used
scope (comprehensive vs. restricted or single behaviors),
presence or absence of a classification scheme, and an op-
erational definition of intent as features to enable analysis
and comparison of these classifications. A chronological
perspective showed that classifications have tended to be-
come more and more precise and operational for clinical
and research field work. However, our review of classifica-
tions highlighted a contradictory and confusing situation
on a global level, owing to the lack of consensus on defi-
nitions and terms related to suicidal ideation and behav-
ior. It would appear that a most urgent objective for future
research would be to explore and understand the interna-
tional and intercultural variability of definitions and terms
for suicidal behavior around the world in order to deter-
mine what they all have in common and promote common
understanding among clinicians and researchers working
in the suicide prevention field. This could be done by sur-
veying professionals from around the world to determine
the most frequently used terms used to describe suicidal
behaviors and proposing an internationally agreed-upon
nomenclature. Steps could then be taken to develop an
agreed-upon and valid classification system. The present
review has provided a basis for further development of
new classifications highlighting the pitfalls to avoid in the
long process of arriving at a global understanding.
© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing
7
Electronic Supplementary Material
The electronic supplementary material is available
with the online version of the article at https://doi.
org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622
ESM 1. PRISMA flowchart: paper inclusion process
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders -V. Arlington, VA: Author.
Barber, M. E., Marzuk, P. M., Leon, A. C., & Portera, L. (1998). Abort-
ed suicide attempts: A new classification of suicidal behavior.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 155(3), 385–389. https://doi.
org/10.1176/ajp.155.3.385
Beck, A. T., Davis, J. H., Frederick, C. J., Perlin, S., Pokorny, A. D.,
Schulman, R. E., … Wittlin, B. J. (1973). Classification and No-
menclature. In H. L. P. Resnik & B. C. Hathorne (Eds.), Suicide pre-
vention in the 70’s (pp. 7–12). Rockville, MD: Center for Studies of
Suicide Prevention, National Institute of Mental Health.
Brenner, L. A., Breshears, R. E., Betthauser, L. M., Bellon, K. K., Hol-
man, E., Harwood, J. E., … Nagamoto, H. T. (2011). Implementa-
tion of a suicide nomenclature within two VA healthcare set-
tings. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 18(2),
116–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-011-9240-9
Brown, G. K., Jeglic, E., Henriques, G. R., & Beck, A. T. (2006). Cogni-
tive therapy, cognition, and suicidal behavior. In T. E. Ellis (Ed.),
Cognition and suicide: Theory, research, and therapy (pp. 53–74).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Cohen, E. (1969). Self-assault in psychiatric evaluation: A pro-
posed clinical classification. Archives of General Psychiatry,
21(1), 64–67.
Crosby, A., Ortega, L., & Melanson, C. (2011). Self-directed violence
surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data ele-
ments. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Devries, A. G. (1968). Definition of suicidal behaviors. Psychologi-
cal Reports, 22(3 Suppl), 1093–1098. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1968.22.3c.1093
Ellis, T. E. (1988). Classification of suicidal behavior: A review and
step toward integration. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior,
18(4), 358–371.
Fedyszyn, I. E., Harris, M. G., Robinson, J., & Paxton, S. J. (2012).
Classification algorithm for the determination of suicide at-
tempt and suicide (CAD-SAS). Crisis, 33, 151–161. https://doi.
org/10.1027/0227-5910/a000122
Goodfellow, B., Kõlves, K., & De Leo, D. (2018). Contemporary no-
menclatures of suicidal behaviors: A systematic literature re-
view. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 48(3), 353–366.
https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12354
Goodfellow, B., Kõlves, K., & De Leo, D. (2019). Contemporary Defi-
nitions of suicidal behavior: A systematic literature review. Su-
icide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 49(2), 488–504. https://doi.
org/10.1111/sltb.12457
Lester, D. (1990). A classification of acts of attempted suicide. Per-
ceptual and Motor Skills, 70(3 Suppl), 1245–1246. https://doi.
org/10.2466/pms.1990.70.3c.1245
Litman, R. E. (1968). Psychological-psychiatric aspects in certify-
ing modes of death. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 13(1), 46–54.
Matarazzo, B. B., Clemans, T. A., Silverman, M. M., & Brenner, L.
A. (2012). The self-directed violence classification system and
the Columbia classification algorithm for suicide assessment:
Crisis 2019
 8 B. Goodfellow et al., Contemporary Classifications of Suicidal Behaviors
${protocol}://econtent.hogrefe.com/doi/pdf/10.1027/0227-5910/a000622 - Benjamin Goodfellow <benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com> - Thursday, September 12, 2019 2:17:36 PM - IP Address:202.22.156.85
A crosswalk. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 43(3), 235–
249. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1943-278x.2012.00131.x
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The
PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), e1000097.
O’Carroll, P. W., Berman, A. L., Maris, R. W., Moscicki, E. K., Tanney,
B. L., & Silverman, M. M. (1996). Beyond the Tower of Babel: A
nomenclature for suicidology. Suicide and Life-Threatening Be-
havior, 26(3), 237–252.
Perr, H. M. (1979). Suicidality as a diagnostic classification. Ameri-
can Journal of Psychiatry, 136(10), 1347–1347.
Posner, K., Oquendo, M. A., Gould, M., Stanley, B., & Davies, M.
(2007). Columbia Classification Algorithm of Suicide Assess-
ment (C-CASA): Classification of suicidal events in the FDA’s
pediatric suicidal risk analysis of antidepressants. Amer-
ican Journal of Psychiatry, 164(7), 1035–1043. https://doi.
org/10.1176/ajp.2007.164.7.1035
Rosenberg, M. L., Davidson, L. E., Smith, J. C., Berman, A. L., Buz-
bee, H., Gantner, G., … Murray, D. (1988). Operational criteria for
the determination of suicide. Journal of Forensic Science, 33(6),
1445–1456.
Shah, A., & Ganesvaran, T. (1999). A possible clinical classifica-
tion for the psychopathology of suicidal intent among psy-
chiatric inpatients committing suicide. International Journal
of Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, 3(3), 199–204. https://doi.
org/10.3109/13651509909022734
Silverman, M. M., Berman, A. L., Sanddal, N. D., O’Carroll, P. W., &
Joiner, T. E. (2007). Rebuilding the tower of Babel: A revised no-
menclature for the study of suicide and suicidal behaviors. Part
2: Suicide-related ideations, communications, and behaviors.
Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 37(3), 264–277. https://
doi.org/10.1521/suli.2007.37.3.264
Silverman, M. M., & De Leo, D. (2016). Why there is a need for an
international nomenclature and classification system for sui-
cide. Crisis, 37(2), 83–87. https://doi.org/10.1027/0227-5910/
a000419
World Health Organization. (2016). International classification of
diseases (ICD). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/classifica-
tions/icd/en/
Crisis 2019
View publication stats
History
Received August 28, 2018
Revision received May 19, 2019
Accepted June 7, 2019
Published online September 12, 2019
Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the precious help brought by Ms.
Jasmine Koo, Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Pre-
vention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Bris-
bane, Australia, in the literature search process.
ORCID
Benjamin Goodfellow
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0554-3701
Benjamin Goodfellow is a psychiatrist working in New Caledonia,
where he has implemented the WHO START study since 2014. He
is a PhD candidate at Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia, and a
member of the French World Health Collaborating Center for Re-
search and Training in Mental Health.
Kairi Kõlves is Principal Research Fellow and Course Convener
at the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention
(AISRAP) and Co-Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for
Research and Training in Suicide Prevention. Between 1999 and
2008, she worked at the Estonian-Swedish Mental Health and
Suicidology Institute.
Diego De Leo is Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry and former direc-
tor of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention
(AISRAP), World Health Organization Collaborating Centre on Re-
search and Training in Suicide Prevention. He was Editor-in-Chief
of Crisis: The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention
between 2008 and 2017.
Benjamin Goodfellow
Centre Hospitalier Albert Bousquet
BP 120, 98845 Nouméa Cédex
New Caledonia
benjamin.goodfellow@benjamingoodfellow.com
© 2019 Hogrefe Publishing