User login
The primary approaches used to intervene at suicide hot spots are effective at discouraging suicides, according to a systematic review by Jane Pirkis, Ph.D., of the center for mental health at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, and her associates.
Suicide hot spots are sites that are frequently used for suicides and gain reputations for such. They include bridges, tall buildings, railroad tracks, cliffs, and woodland areas, according to the investigators.
The review found 23 relevant articles containing 18 unique studies. All three primary means of suicide intervention measured a significantly reduced number of suicides, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.09 for restricting access to suicide means, an IRR of 0.49 for interventions encouraging help seeking, and an IRR of 0.53 for interventions increasing the chances of third-party intervention.
When each means of intervention was assessed in isolation, both restricting access to suicide means and encouraging individuals to seek help remained effective. The IRR for restricting access to suicide means was 0.07 and was 0.39 for encouraging help seeking. No study measured increasing the chances of third-party intervention in isolation.
In a related comment, Eric Caine, Ph.D., of the injury control research center for suicide prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said, “Given the small numbers involved, blocking access to suicide hot spots should be part of an overall regional or national approach to suicide prevention.”
Find the full study in the Lancet Psychiatry (doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00266-7).
The primary approaches used to intervene at suicide hot spots are effective at discouraging suicides, according to a systematic review by Jane Pirkis, Ph.D., of the center for mental health at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, and her associates.
Suicide hot spots are sites that are frequently used for suicides and gain reputations for such. They include bridges, tall buildings, railroad tracks, cliffs, and woodland areas, according to the investigators.
The review found 23 relevant articles containing 18 unique studies. All three primary means of suicide intervention measured a significantly reduced number of suicides, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.09 for restricting access to suicide means, an IRR of 0.49 for interventions encouraging help seeking, and an IRR of 0.53 for interventions increasing the chances of third-party intervention.
When each means of intervention was assessed in isolation, both restricting access to suicide means and encouraging individuals to seek help remained effective. The IRR for restricting access to suicide means was 0.07 and was 0.39 for encouraging help seeking. No study measured increasing the chances of third-party intervention in isolation.
In a related comment, Eric Caine, Ph.D., of the injury control research center for suicide prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said, “Given the small numbers involved, blocking access to suicide hot spots should be part of an overall regional or national approach to suicide prevention.”
Find the full study in the Lancet Psychiatry (doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00266-7).
The primary approaches used to intervene at suicide hot spots are effective at discouraging suicides, according to a systematic review by Jane Pirkis, Ph.D., of the center for mental health at the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, and her associates.
Suicide hot spots are sites that are frequently used for suicides and gain reputations for such. They include bridges, tall buildings, railroad tracks, cliffs, and woodland areas, according to the investigators.
The review found 23 relevant articles containing 18 unique studies. All three primary means of suicide intervention measured a significantly reduced number of suicides, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 0.09 for restricting access to suicide means, an IRR of 0.49 for interventions encouraging help seeking, and an IRR of 0.53 for interventions increasing the chances of third-party intervention.
When each means of intervention was assessed in isolation, both restricting access to suicide means and encouraging individuals to seek help remained effective. The IRR for restricting access to suicide means was 0.07 and was 0.39 for encouraging help seeking. No study measured increasing the chances of third-party intervention in isolation.
In a related comment, Eric Caine, Ph.D., of the injury control research center for suicide prevention at the University of Rochester (N.Y.) Medical Center, said, “Given the small numbers involved, blocking access to suicide hot spots should be part of an overall regional or national approach to suicide prevention.”
Find the full study in the Lancet Psychiatry (doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366[15]00266-7).