RESUMEN
Suicide is a global health challenge. One prevention strategy is teaching individuals how to detect and respond to suicidality. These training have increasingly been delivered online. We searched WoS, Scopus, and PubMed from inception until the 20 September 2023 to evaluate e-learning efficacy as standardized mean changes and standardized mean differences. We synthesized main results using multilevel meta-analyses and subgroups using random-effects meta-analyses. Robins-I, RoB-II and trim-and-fill were used to assess the risk of bias. Of the 6516 initially screened articles, 26 were included. Overall, e-learning increased suicide prevention skills. Subgroups reported differing results: e-learning affected knowledge and self-efficacy more than behavior and attitudes. Efficacy, short duration, and low-cost suggest that e-learning may be feasible in teaching basic suicide prevention skills to lay people. However, current evidence suggests that health care professionals should not rely on e-learning as a training modality, except when no other form of training is available. Preregisteration: CRD42020218978.
RESUMEN
We used multivariate meta-analysis modeling variances and covariances of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury to investigate if the Fearlessness About Death scale differentiated between suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury. The systematic search yielded 27 studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The association of suicidal ideation with suicide attempts was comparable to the association of suicidal ideation with non-suicidal self-injury. The Fearlessness About Death scale weakened both associations to a comparative degree. These results cast doubt on the clinical utility of the Fearlessness About Death scale, as well as the self-assessment of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and non-suicidal self-injury.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of distance-based interventions (DBIs) to reduce suicidal ideation and behaviours are an increasingly relevant form of intervention. DBIs are more affordable, scalable and available than traditional face-to-face interventions, helping to narrow the gap between needed and provided care. AIMS: To evaluate the overall effectiveness of DBIs against suicidal ideation and behaviours. METHOD: We systematically searched Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed for all DBIs primarily aimed at reducing suicidal ideation and behaviours. Data were analysed with a robust variance estimation corrected, multi-level meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found 38 studies, reporting 110 outcomes. Effectiveness in reducing suicidal ideation was low (standardised mean difference -0.174, 95% CI -0.238 to -0.110). DBIs were significantly less effective against suicidal behaviours than against suicidal ideation, although still effective (standardised mean difference -0.059, 95% CI -0.087 to -0.032). Human involvement had no significant effect on effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Despite low effectiveness, DBIs might play a role in large-scale prevention efforts against suicidal ideation within a stepped care approach. Further, DBIs may be helpful in expanding mental health services in low- and middle-income countries with otherwise limited access to mental healthcare. Although the evidence for DBIs efficacy is well grounded, the technical and scientific evaluation of DBIs regarding their set up, functionality and components needs to be addressed in future studies.
