A rapid review of interventions to reduce suicide ideation, attempts, and deaths at public locations
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Suicide deaths are tragic events and those that occur in public places have an impact not only on the deceased person and their family and friends, but also on members of the public. Having up-to-date information about the effectiveness of interventions allows policymakers and organisations managing locations of concern to choose the most appropriate evidence-based suicide prevention strategies for specific locations. This rapid review was conducted to help inform the development of Welsh national guidance. The review included literature published since 2014. 24 studies were identified, and these were conducted in the UK, Australia, South Korea, Canada, USA, Denmark and Japan. The studies covered railway or underground stations, bridges, cliffs or other natural heights, tall buildings, and other types of locations. Surveillance technologies as a means of increasing opportunity for third-party intervention showed the most promise, although the evidence of their effectiveness was limited. In one study, having more closed-circuit television (CCTV) units was associated with fewer suicides at railway stations. Another study that tested a set of interventions including CCTV, infrared security fences, and a suicidal behaviour recognition and alert system, provided some promising initial descriptive data that showed an increase in the number of prevented suicides. Three other studies showed that there was no change in outcomes following the installation of interventions including surveillance technologies. Based on the assessment of the overall body of the evidence, there is a low level of confidence in the findings related to surveillance technologies because of the quality and designs of the studies. Promotion of suicide helplines as an intervention aimed at increasing opportunities for help seeking was examined in seven studies. Two studies reported that the number of suicides increased after the introduction of the intervention. Three studies, of which two examined a set of interventions including helplines, observed no change. In two studies the effect could not be determined. There is a low level of confidence in the evidence for this outcome. Other interventions evaluated included staff training; deployment of specialist staff; campaigns encouraging bystanders to intervene; a crisis café; blue lights at railway stations; suicide prevention messages, memorials, or notes other than official crisis line signage; spinning rollers at the top of fences that prevent gripping; and others. The effect of these interventions could not be determined with certainty but some of them appeared promising and warrant further research. More robust evaluations are needed before any of the interventions reviewed here can be recommended for implementation. To create a better evidence base, high-quality evaluations should be supported and encouraged. Future research should examine which interventions work for who and in what circumstances.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,045 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,015 | 0,011 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».