Breaking Down Barriers to a Suicide Prevention Helpline: Protocol for a Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Globally, suicide is among the leading causes of death, with men being more at risk to die from suicide than women. Research suggests that people with suicidal ideation often struggle to find adequate help. Every month, around 4000 people fill in the anonymous self-test for suicidal thoughts on the website of the Dutch suicide prevention helpline. This self-test includes the Suicidal Ideation Attributes Scale (SIDAS), which educates users about the severity of their suicidal thoughts. The vast majority (70%) of people who complete the self-test score higher than the cutoff point (≥21) for severe suicidal thoughts. Unfortunately, despite this, less than 10% of test-takers navigate to the web page about contacting the helpline. OBJECTIVE: This protocol presents the design of a web-based randomized controlled trial that aims to reduce barriers to contacting the suicide prevention helpline. The aim of this study is 2-fold: (1) to measure the effectiveness of a brief barrier reduction intervention (BRI) provided in the self-test motivating people with severe suicidal thoughts to contact the Dutch suicide prevention helpline and (2) to specifically evaluate the effectiveness of the BRI in increasing service use by high-risk groups for suicide such as men and middle-aged people. METHODS: People visiting the self-test for suicidal thoughts on the website of the suicide prevention helpline will be asked to participate in a study to improve the self-test. Individuals with severe suicidal thoughts and little motivation to contact the helpline will be randomly allocated either to a brief BRI, in which they will receive a short tailored message based on their self-reported barrier to the helpline (n=388) or care as usual (general advisory text, n=388). The primary outcome measure is the use of a direct link to contact the helpline after receiving the intervention or control condition. Secondary outcomes are the self-reported likelihood of contacting the helpline (on a 5-point scale) and satisfaction with the self-test. In the BRI, participants receive tailored information to address underlying concerns and misconceptions of barriers to the helpline. A pilot study was conducted among current test-takers to identify these specific barriers. RESULTS: The pilot study (N=1083) revealed multiple barriers to contacting the helpline. The most prominent were the belief that a conversation with a counselor would not be effective, fear of the conversation itself, and emotional concerns about talking about suicidal thoughts. CONCLUSIONS: Our study will provide insight into the effectiveness of a brief BRI designed to increase the use of a suicide prevention helpline provided in a self-test on suicidal thoughts. If successful, this intervention has the potential to be a low-cost, easily scalable, and feasible method to increase service use for helplines across the world. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05458830; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05458830. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/41078.
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 | 0.043 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.138 | 0.019 |
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".