Information and communication technology-based interventions for suicide prevention implemented in clinical settings: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is a surplus of information communication technology (ICT) based interventions for suicide prevention. However, little is known about which of these ICTs are implemented in clinical settings and their characteristics. This scoping review aimed to map and characterize evidence of ICTs for suicide prevention implemented in clinical settings. Furthermore, this review identified and characterized implementation barriers and facilitators, evaluation outcomes, and measures. Methods We conducted this review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A search strategy was completed using the following databases between August 17–20, 2021: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts. We also supplemented our search with Google searches and scanning of reference lists of relevant reviews. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews to report our findings. Results This review included a total of 75 articles, describing 70 studies and 66 ICTs for suicide prevention implemented in clinical settings. The majority of ICTs were computerized interventions and applications (n = 55). These ICTs were commonly used as indicated strategies (n = 49) targeting patients who were actively presenting with suicide risk. The three most common suicide prevention intervention categories identified were post-discharge follow-up (n = 27), screening and assessment (n = 22), and safety planning (n = 20). A paucity of reported information was identified related to implementation strategies, barriers and facilitators. The most reported implementation strategies included training, education, and collaborative initiatives. Barriers and facilitators of implementation included the need for resource supports, knowledge, skills, motivation as well as engagement with clinicians with research teams. Studies included outcomes at patient, clinician, and health system levels, and implementation outcomes included acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and penetration. Conclusion The findings from this review illustrate several trends of the ICTs for suicide prevention in the literature and identify a need for future research to strengthen the evidence base for improving implementation. More effort is required to better understand and support the implementation and sustainability of ICTs in clinical settings. The findings can also serve as a future resource for researchers seeking to evaluate the impact and implementation of ICTs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".