4.1 Review

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

Journal

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH JOURNAL
Volume 58, Issue 3, Pages 454-473

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10597-021-00841-6

Keywords

Community awareness; Suicide prevention; Theory; model-informed education; Technology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Suicide is a global epidemic and the scope and effectiveness of suicide prevention programs need to be continually assessed and improved. Current suicide prevention programs, while effective, have limitations such as inaccessibility, narrow content for the community, and substantial variability in theory base. Future suicide prevention programs should be more specific in theory, delivered through technology, target more of the community, and improve methodological rigour.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available