Dataset Information

Development of an online suicide prevention program involving people with lived experience: ideas and challenges.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Fear of stigmatization, self-stigmatization, and insufficient information can lead to secrecy, reduced help-seeking, lower self-esteem, and lower self-efficacy among people affected by suicidality or suicide. Therefore, we developed an online suicide prevention program aiming to improve knowledge about suicidality and suicide stigma.

Methods

Inspired by the Australian program The Ripple Effect, a German team comprising people with lived experience of suicide, researchers, and clinicians was established for developing an online suicide prevention program. Therefore, we oriented on guidelines for evidence-based health information, for reporting on suicide, and on dealing with suicidality. The lived experience team discussed and developed concept, structure, and content of the program. This manuscript presents summaries of protocols from 16 team meetings and 3 written text reviews to outline the program development process. A summative evaluation 3 years after program development began was qualitatively analyzed based on thematic analysis.

Results

Between 2018 und 2021, the lived experience team (n = 10) discussed possibilities of support in suicidal crises, attitudes towards suicide, content, and design of the online program. In a structured process, six members of the lived experience team reviewed the content. Eight persons shared their lived experience of suicide in video reports by focusing on constructive ways of dealing with suicidality or a loss by suicide, conveying hope and encouraging people to continue living. Team members recommended greater public and patient involvement from the application stage, as well as more financial and personnel resources.

Conclusions

Through contributions to discussions and text reviews, the lived experience team shaped decisions in the program development process. While involving persons with lived experiences of suicide, it is important to consider that suicidality is 1. emotionally challenging, 2. a stigmatized issue, and 3. that the aspect of safety must be a priority. A distinction must be made between the duty of care based on actual risk and inappropriate overprotection. Hereby, transparency, autonomy, and a clear structure appeared to be helpful. For further research, we recommend a structured formative review process of the development of the program. Additionally, we recommend discussing the purpose and the specific design of the evaluation with a lived experience team in advance. Trial registration German Clinical Trial RegisterDRKS00015071 on August 6, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Dreier M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8424946 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Peer-led support models have gained increasing popularity in suicide prevention. While previous reviews show positive effects of peer-led support for people with mental health problems and those bereaved by suicide, little is known about the types of lived experience peer support programs in suicide prevention and whether these are effective in improving the health and wellbeing of people at risk of suicide. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of peer support programs that aim to reduce suicidality and are led by people with lived experience of suicide. Method:We conducted a systematic scoping review, involving a search of three academic (Medline, PsycINFO, Embase) and selected grey literature databases (Google Scholar, WHO Clinical Trials Registry) for publications between 2000 and 2019. We also contacted suicide prevention experts and relevant internet sites to identify peer support programs that exist but have not been evaluated. The screening of records followed a systematic two-stage process in alignment with PRISMA guidelines. Results:We identified 8 records accounting for 7 programs focussed on peer-led support programs in suicide prevention. These programs employed a range of different designs and included a variety of settings (schools, communities, rural and online). Only 3 of the 7 programs contained data on effectiveness. With the small number of eligible programs the findings from this review are limited and must be interpreted with caution. Conclusions:Despite the increased focus of policymakers on the importance of peer support programs in suicide prevention, our scoping review confirms an evidence gap in research knowledge regarding program design, implementation, and effectiveness. More rigour is required in reporting peer-led support initiatives to clarify the underlying definition of peer support and lived experience and to enhance our understanding of the types of current peer support programs available to those experiencing suicidality. Further, we need formal and high-quality evaluations of peer support suicide prevention programs led by people with lived experience to better understand their effectiveness on participant health across different settings and delivery modalities and to allow for comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analysis in future.

Project description:BackgroundCo-research is a collaborative approach to research, promoting involvement of individuals with lived experience of a research area as experts by experience. Recently, the importance of co-research within palliative and end of life care (PEoLC) has been highlighted, yet few recommendations exist regarding best practice for involving inclusion health groups (i.e., groups that are socially excluded, typically experiencing multiple disadvantages that contribute to poor health outcomes).AimsTo identify and synthesise qualitative literature outlining barriers and facilitators for involving four inclusion health groups (individuals with lived experience of: homelessness, substance use disorder, incarceration or exchanging sex for money) in PEoLC research, from the perspectives of both the researchers and individuals with lived experience.MethodsThis report is a rapid review with thematic synthesis methodology. Three electronic databases were searched (2012-30th August 2022). Thematic synthesis was used to generate themes across qualitative studies.ResultsThree qualitative studies were eligible for inclusion. Two involved individuals with lived experience of incarceration, and one lived experience of homelessness. No papers outlined best-practice guidance for co-research; all offered reflections on the co-research process. Challenges for involvement included: facilitating appropriate reimbursement; overcoming stigma; fear of tokenism; pre-conceived views and the emotional burden of research. Successes and benefits included: advanced level of insight, a two-way learning opportunity and relatability of lived experience co-researchers.ConclusionsThis review did not identify any best-practice guidance for co-production of PEoLC research with inclusion health groups. There are few, good quality, qualitative studies offering insight into challenges and facilitators for lived experience co-researcher involvement. Further research and formal policy development is required to produce formal best-practice guidance to support safe, impactful inclusion in PEoLC research. It is important that researchers work together with people who have lived experience of the topic they are researching. Palliative care is specialised medical care for people living with a terminal illness. There is some collaboration between researchers and people with lived experience in palliative and end-of-life care research. However, some groups of people have been excluded. This includes people experiencing homelessness, or people with drug or alcohol addictions. This review aimed to understand what works and what doesn't work when involving four excluded groups in palliative and end-of-life research. These groups were people experiencing homelessness, those who had spent time in prison, people with drug or alcohol disorders, and people who exchanged sex for money. This review used a shortened methodology, which allowed it to be done quickly. Three online academic databases (Medline, PubMed, PsychINFO) were searched for research projects: three papers were included in the review. No clear guidance for working with these groups was found. Analysis identified themes across papers. Challenges for collaboration included: appropriate payment methods; overcoming stigma; fear of being talked down to,; assumptions made before meeting people, and the potential of becoming upset. Successes and benefits included: better understanding of the research topic, the opportunity to learn from one another, and how research participants could relate to lived experience co-researchers. There are few, good quality papers, but more research is needed to produce guidance to support safe, impactful collaboration.

Project description:BackgroundDespite being preventable, suicide is a leading cause of death and a major global public health problem. For every death by suicide, many more suicide attempts are undertaken, and this presents as a critical risk factor for suicide. Currently, there are limited treatment options with limited underpinning research for those who present to emergency departments with suicidal behaviour. The aim of this study is to assess if adding one of two structured suicide-specific psychological interventions (Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program [ASSIP] or Brief Cognitive Behavioural Therapy [CBT] for Suicide Prevention) to a standardised clinical care approach (Suicide Prevention Pathway [SPP]) improves the outcomes for consumers presenting to a Mental Health Service with a suicide attempt.MethodsThis is a randomised controlled trial with blinding of those assessing the outcomes. People who attempt suicide or experience suicidality after a suicide attempt, present to the Gold Coast Mental Health and Specialist Services, are placed on the Suicide Prevention Pathway (SPP), and meet the eligibility criteria, are offered the opportunity to participate. A total of 411 participants will be recruited for the study, with 137 allocated to each cohort (participants are randomised to SPP, ASSIP + SPP, or CBT + SPP). The primary outcomes of this study are re-presentation to hospitals with suicide attempts. Presentations with suicidal ideation will also be examined (in a descriptive analysis) to ascertain whether a rise in suicidal ideation is commensurate with a fall in suicide attempts (which might indicate an increase in help-seeking behaviours). Death by suicide rates will also be examined to ensure that representations with a suicide attempt are not due to participants dying, but due to a potential improvement in mental health. For participants without a subsequent suicide attempt, the total number of days from enrolment to the last assessment (24 months) will be calculated. Self-reported levels of suicidality, depression, anxiety, stress, resilience, problem-solving skills, and self- and therapist-reported level of therapeutic engagement are also being examined. Psychometric data are collected at baseline, end of interventions, and 6,12, and 24 months.DiscussionThis project will move both ASSIP and Brief CBT from efficacy to effectiveness research, with clear aims of assessing the addition of two structured psychological interventions to treatment as usual, providing a cost-benefit analysis of the interventions, thus delivering outcomes providing a clear pathway for rapid translation of successful interventions.Trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04072666 . Registered on 28 August 2019.