Key Components and Barriers in Web-Based Suicide Prevention Gatekeeper Training: Systematic Narrative Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gatekeeper training programs (GTPs) are a key component of contemporary suicide prevention strategies, equipping community members and non-mental health professionals with the skills to identify, engage with, and refer individuals at risk of suicide. Increasingly, these programs are delivered via the web, offering a compelling alternative to in-person training through greater scalability, flexibility, and cost-effectiveness. However, little consensus exists regarding the design, modes of delivery, and implementation strategies of web-based GTPs. Further, there is a limited understanding of which components affect their usability and engagement. OBJECTIVE: This systematic narrative review aims to identify the key components-including facilitators and barriers-of web-based GTPs. METHODS: We systematically searched web-based databases (CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science) to identify peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2025 that involved web-based GTPs. After screening, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed using content analysis to identify key components and barriers affecting the delivery and receipt of web-based GTPs. RESULTS: Results were organized under 3 categories: design, content, and pedagogy. Key design considerations emphasized accessibility for diverse learning styles and digital literacy levels, customizability for different user groups, privacy protection, and the long-term sustainability of training content and delivery platforms. Core training content covered four domains: (1) suicide-related knowledge (eg, prevalence, myths, and at-risk groups), (2) gatekeeping skills (eg, understanding risk factors, recognizing warning signs, problem-solving and safety planning), (3) resource awareness (eg, available local resources and referral procedures), and (4) general mental health education (eg, mental fitness, mindfulness, and self-care strategies for gatekeepers). In terms of pedagogy, the reviewed studies used a wide range of strategies that comprised interactive learning activities (eg, simulation, practice exercises), periodic knowledge checks (eg, quizzes), and reinforcement mechanisms (eg, booster sessions). Additionally, fostering a sense of community (eg, online support spaces or discussion forums) and promoting trainees' autonomy (eg, self-paced training) were highlighted as key components of training delivery. CONCLUSIONS: Web-based GTPs represent a promising avenue for expanding access to suicide prevention training. Their effectiveness may be strengthened through the integration of frameworks tailored to web-based learning environments, as well as interactive and user-centered design elements that support learning and retention. Future research should examine the acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability of these programs, while also refining their adaptation for diverse populations. In this regard, co-design approaches could facilitate the tailoring of such programs to the needs and specificities of their target populations. Overall, enhancing the design and delivery of web-based GTPs may ultimately improve their contribution to suicide prevention efforts.
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 | 0.023 | 0.105 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".