Jo Robinson1, Eleanor Bailey1, Katrina Witt2, Nina Stefanac1, Allison Milner3, Dianne Currier4, Jane Pirkis4, Patrick Condron5, Sarah Hetrick1,6. 1. Orygen, The National Centre of Excellence in Youth Mental Health, 35 Poplar Road, Vic 3052, Australia. 2. Turning Point, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, 110 Church Street, Richmond, VIC 3121, Australia. 3. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 235 Bouverie Street, Vic 3010, Australia. 4. Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 235 Bouverie Street, Vic 3010, Australia. 5. University Library, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Vic 3010, Australia. 6. Department of Psychological Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Support Building Auckland Hospital, 2 Park Rd, Auckland 1142, New Zealand.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young people require specific attention when it comes to suicide prevention, however efforts need to be based on robust evidence. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies examining the impact of interventions that were specifically designed to reduce suicide-related behavior in young people. FINDINGS: Ninety-nine studies were identified, of which 52 were conducted in clinical settings, 31 in educational or workplace settings, and 15 in community settings. Around half were randomized controlled trials. Large scale interventions delivered in both clinical and educational settings appear to reduce self-harm and suicidal ideation post-intervention, and to a lesser extent at follow-up. In community settings, multi-faceted, place-based approaches seem to have an impact. Study quality was limited. INTERPRETATION: Overall whilst the number and range of studies is encouraging, gaps exist. Few studies were conducted in low-middle income countries or with demographic populations known to be at increased risk. Similarly, there was a lack of studies conducted in primary care, universities and workplaces. However, we identified that specific youth suicide-prevention interventions can reduce self-harm and suicidal ideation; these types of intervention need testing in high-quality studies.
BACKGROUND: Young people require specific attention when it comes to suicide prevention, however efforts need to be based on robust evidence. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all studies examining the impact of interventions that were specifically designed to reduce suicide-related behavior in young people. FINDINGS: Ninety-nine studies were identified, of which 52 were conducted in clinical settings, 31 in educational or workplace settings, and 15 in community settings. Around half were randomized controlled trials. Large scale interventions delivered in both clinical and educational settings appear to reduce self-harm and suicidal ideation post-intervention, and to a lesser extent at follow-up. In community settings, multi-faceted, place-based approaches seem to have an impact. Study quality was limited. INTERPRETATION: Overall whilst the number and range of studies is encouraging, gaps exist. Few studies were conducted in low-middle income countries or with demographic populations known to be at increased risk. Similarly, there was a lack of studies conducted in primary care, universities and workplaces. However, we identified that specific youth suicide-prevention interventions can reduce self-harm and suicidal ideation; these types of intervention need testing in high-quality studies.
Entities:
Keywords:
Meta-analysis; Self-harm; Suicide prevention; Systematic review; Young people
Authors: S Byford; R Harrington; D Torgerson; M Kerfoot; E Dyer; V Harrington; A Woodham; J Gill; F McNiven Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: E Arensman; E Townsend; K Hawton; S Bremner; E Feldman; R Goldney; D Gunnell; P Hazell; K Van Heeringen; A House; D Owens; I Sakinofsky; L Träskman-Bendz Journal: Suicide Life Threat Behav Date: 2001
Authors: P J R Power; R J Bell; R Mills; T Herrman-Doig; M Davern; L Henry; H P Yuen; A Khademy-Deljo; P D McGorry Journal: Aust N Z J Psychiatry Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.744
Authors: Laika D Aguinaldo; Aimee Goldstone; Brant P Hasler; David A Brent; Clarisa Coronado; Joanna Jacobus Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2021-02-23 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Stéphanie Baggio; Abbas Kanani; Neslie Nsingi; Marlène Sapin; Raphaël Thélin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Nicole T M Hill; Jo Robinson; Jane Pirkis; Karl Andriessen; Karolina Krysinska; Amber Payne; Alexandra Boland; Alison Clarke; Allison Milner; Katrina Witt; Stephan Krohn; Amit Lampit Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Katrina G Witt; Sarah E Hetrick; Gowri Rajaram; Philip Hazell; Tatiana L Taylor Salisbury; Ellen Townsend; Keith Hawton Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-07
Authors: Pinar Thorn; Nicole Tm Hill; Michelle Lamblin; Zoe Teh; Rikki Battersby-Coulter; Simon Rice; Sarah Bendall; Kerry L Gibson; Summer May Finlay; Ryan Blandon; Libby de Souza; Ashlee West; Anita Cooksey; Joe Sciglitano; Simon Goodrich; Jo Robinson Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2020-05-11
Authors: Nina Stefanac; Sarah Hetrick; Carol Hulbert; Matthew J Spittal; Katrina Witt; Jo Robinson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2019-10-28 Impact factor: 3.295