Andrew Page1, Jo-An Atkinson2, Mark Heffernan3, Geoff McDonnell2, Ante Prodan4, Nathaniel Osgood5, Ian Hickie6. 1. 1 Translational Health Research Institute, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 2. 2 Decision Analytics, Sax Institute, Ultimo, NSW, Australia. 3. 3 Dynamic Operations, Mona Vale, NSW, Australia. 4. 4 School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia. 5. 5 Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada. 6. 6 Brain and Mind Centre, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates two approaches to estimate the potential impact of a population-level intervention on Australian suicide, to highlight the importance of selecting appropriate analytic approaches for informing evidence-based strategies for suicide prevention. METHODS: The potential impact of a psychosocial therapy intervention on the incidence of suicide in Australia over the next 10 years was used as a case study to compare the potential impact on suicides averted using: (1) a traditional epidemiological measure of population attributable risk and (2) a dynamic measure of population impact based on a systems science model of suicide that incorporates changes over time. RESULTS: Based on the population preventive fraction, findings suggest that the psychosocial therapy intervention if implemented among all eligible individuals in the Australian population would prevent 5.4% of suicides (or 1936 suicides) over the next 10 years. In comparison, estimates from the dynamic simulation model which accounts for changes in the effect size of the intervention over time, the time taken for the intervention to have an impact in the population, and likely barriers to the uptake and availability of services suggest that the intervention would avert a lower proportion of suicides (between 0.4% and 0.5%) over the same follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Traditional epidemiological measures used to estimate population health burden have several limitations that are often understated and can lead to unrealistic expectations of the potential impact of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings. This study highlights these limitations and proposes an alternative analytic approach to guide policy and practice decisions to achieve reductions in Australian suicide.
OBJECTIVES: This study investigates two approaches to estimate the potential impact of a population-level intervention on Australian suicide, to highlight the importance of selecting appropriate analytic approaches for informing evidence-based strategies for suicide prevention. METHODS: The potential impact of a psychosocial therapy intervention on the incidence of suicide in Australia over the next 10 years was used as a case study to compare the potential impact on suicides averted using: (1) a traditional epidemiological measure of population attributable risk and (2) a dynamic measure of population impact based on a systems science model of suicide that incorporates changes over time. RESULTS: Based on the population preventive fraction, findings suggest that the psychosocial therapy intervention if implemented among all eligible individuals in the Australian population would prevent 5.4% of suicides (or 1936 suicides) over the next 10 years. In comparison, estimates from the dynamic simulation model which accounts for changes in the effect size of the intervention over time, the time taken for the intervention to have an impact in the population, and likely barriers to the uptake and availability of services suggest that the intervention would avert a lower proportion of suicides (between 0.4% and 0.5%) over the same follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Traditional epidemiological measures used to estimate population health burden have several limitations that are often understated and can lead to unrealistic expectations of the potential impact of evidence-based interventions in real-world settings. This study highlights these limitations and proposes an alternative analytic approach to guide policy and practice decisions to achieve reductions in Australian suicide.
Authors: Philippe J Giabbanelli; Ketra L Rice; Michael C Galgoczy; Nisha Nataraj; Margaret M Brown; Christopher R Harper; Minh Duc Nguyen; Romain Foy Journal: Soc Netw Anal Min Date: 2022-06-15
Authors: Grace Yeeun Lee; Ian Bernard Hickie; Jo-An Occhipinti; Yun Ju Christine Song; Adam Skinner; Salvador Camacho; Kenny Lawson; Adriane Martin Hilber; Louise Freebairn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Louise Freebairn; Jo-An Atkinson; Yang Qin; Christopher J Nolan; Alison L Kent; Paul M Kelly; Luke Penza; Ante Prodan; Anahita Safarishahrbijari; Weicheng Qian; Louise Maple-Brown; Roland Dyck; Allen McLean; Geoff McDonnell; Nathaniel D Osgood Journal: BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care Date: 2020-05
Authors: Louise Freebairn; Jo-An Atkinson; Nathaniel D Osgood; Paul M Kelly; Geoff McDonnell; Lucie Rychetnik Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jo-An Atkinson; Yun Ju Christine Song; Kathleen R Merikangas; Adam Skinner; Ante Prodan; Frank Iorfino; Louise Freebairn; Danya Rose; Nicholas Ho; Jacob Crouse; Vadim Zipunnikov; Ian B Hickie Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-25 Impact factor: 4.157
Authors: Louise Freebairn; Jo-An Occhipinti; Yun Ju C Song; Adam Skinner; Kenny Lawson; Grace Yeeun Lee; Samuel J Hockey; Samantha Huntley; Ian B Hickie Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2022-02-07
Authors: Andrew Page; Saikou Y Diallo; Wesley J Wildman; George Hodulik; Eric W Weisel; Neha Gondal; David Voas Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 1.929