Saving Lives: A Systematic Review on the Efficacy of Theory-Informed Suicide Prevention Programs.

Suicide is a global epidemic. This review assessed the scope and effectiveness of suicide prevention programs. Systematic literature searches were conducted using PsycINFO, ERIC and MEDLINE to retrieve articles published between January 2007 and March 2017 and fulfilled inclusion criteria (studies evaluating the efficacy of theory/model-informed suicide prevention programs in increasing participant knowledge or skills when presented with a peer at risk of suicide). The review is informed by PRISMA guidelines. Of 1398 studies identified, 25 were reviewed and most: targeted professionals; were 1-4-day workshops; were underpinned by 21 different theories; taught less detail to the community than professionals; and improved target outcomes. Current programs, although effective, are limited by their inaccessibility, narrow content for the community and substantial variability in theory base. Future suicide prevention programs will benefit from being informed by a more specific theory, delivered through technology, targeting more of the community and improving methodological rigour.

Enhancing Community Suicide Risk Assessment and Protective Intervention Action Plans Through a Bystander Intervention Model-Informed Video.

Aim: The effects of a bystander intervention model (BIM)-informed intervention (video) for the general community on participant risk of suicide assessment ability (ROSAA) and protective intervention ability (PIA) were compared with an active control (non-BIM-informed video). Method: Video interventions with 628 participants (Mage = 47.99, SDage = 17.34, range = 18-85 years) were conducted online. ROSAA and PIA were assessed immediately preintervention, postintervention, and at 2 months follow-up (n = 126). Results: Linear mixed model analyses indicated that the experimental and control conditions improved on both outcome variables postintervention/Time 2 (T2); however, the former yielded better outcomes than the latter (moderate ESs in both variables). Follow-up/Time 3 (T3) experimental ROSAA scores were higher than Time 1 (T1) and lower than T2 scores. Follow-up experimental PIA scores were higher than T1 and lower than T2 scores. Follow-up control ROSAA scores were higher than those of T1 and similar to T2. Follow-up control PIA scores were similar to T1 and T2 scores. Limitations: Limitations of the study include: sample homogeneity, small n at follow-up, self-report data only (no observable behavior was tested), fair inter-rater reliability, and a brief follow-up time frame. Conclusion: Current community information increased ROSAA and PIA. A BIM-informed intervention significantly enhanced these effects, which seemed to wane somewhat over time with the effect being lower at follow-up compared with postintervention. The BIM should be explored further as a basis for community suicide prevention interventions.

Promoting the Community's Ability to Detect and Respond to Suicide Risk Through an Online Bystander Intervention Model-Informed Tool.

Background: The public health sector has advocated for more innovative, technology-based, suicide prevention education for the community, to improve their ability to detect and respond to suicide risk. Emerging evidence suggests addressing the bystander effect through the Bystander Intervention Model (BIM) in education material may have potential for suicide prevention. Aims: The current study aimed to assess whether BIM-informed tools can lead to improved readiness, confidence and intent in the community to detect and respond to suicide risk in others. Method: A sample of 281 adults recruited from the community participated in a randomized controlled trial comprising a factsheet designed according to the BIM (intervention group) and a standard factsheet about suicide and mental health (control group). Participants' self-reported detecting and responding to suicide risk readiness, confidence, and intent when presented with a suicidal peer was tested pre- and postintervention and compared across time and between groups. Results: The intervention group had significantly higher levels of detecting and responding to suicide risk readiness, confidence, and intent than the control group at postintervention (all p < .001) with moderate-to-large effect sizes. Limitations: The study was limited by a homogenous sample, too low numbers at follow-up to report, and self-report data only. Conclusion: This study demonstrates BIM-informed suicide prevention training may enhance the community's intervention readiness, confidence, and intent better than current standard material. Further testing in this area is recommended. While results were statistically significant, clinical significance requires further exploration.