The implementation of a zero-suicide framework in a child and youth mental health service in Australia: processes and learnings

Suicide in children is a significant and growing problem. The “zero suicide” framework (ZSF) is one approach to suicide prevention used in health services for adults and children. This paper reports on the introduction of the first suicide prevention pathway (SPP) based on ZSF at a Child and Youth Mental Health Service (CYMHS) in Australia. It begins by describing the adaptations made to elements of the SPP originally designed for adults to meet the needs of children. Lessons learned in applying the SPP in the service are then discussed. The aim is to inform and improve practice in the use of zero suicide approaches in child and youth mental health settings in Australia and worldwide

A lived experience co-designed study protocol for a randomised control trial: the Attempted Suicide Short Intervention Program (ASSIP) or Brief Cognitive Behavioural Therapy as additional interventions after a suicide attempt compared to a standard Suicide Prevention Pathway (SPP)

BACKGROUND: Despite 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. METHODS: This 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. DISCUSSION: This 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 REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04072666. Registered on 28 August 201

What Is Helpful and What Is Challenging for the Caregivers of Young People Receiving Interventions to Prevent Suicide? Caregivers’ Perspectives—A Rapid Scoping Review

(1) Background: Suicide is a leading cause of death among young people. Preventing suicide in young people is a priority. Caregivers play a vital role in ensuring interventions for young people experiencing suicide ideation and/or attempts are implemented, and that they are maintained over time. Despite this, little is known about what caregivers find helpful and challenging in relation to suicide prevention interventions. This rapid scoping review is the first to address this gap. (2) Methods: Searches were completed on six electronic databases using keywords relating to ‘suicide prevention, ‘young people’, and ‘caregivers’. Ten studies—using both qualitative and quantitative methods, and involving >1400 carers from the United States and Europe—were selected for inclusion. (3) Results: The review shows that caregivers value interventions that are delivered by non-judgmental clinicians, that are suitable to the particular needs of their child, that are available when needed, and that support their confidence and communication. Caregivers experience difficulties with interventions that require their attendance at specific times, and that fail to recognize and/or address their own mental health needs. (4) Conclusions: The findings can be used to inform and improve the intervention design, with the aim of improving outcomes for caregivers and young people

The Paradox of Suicide Prevention

The recognition that we cannot use risk stratification (high, medium, low) to predict suicide or to allocate resources has led to a paradigm shift in suicide prevention efforts. There are challenges in adapting to these new paradigms, including reluctance of clinicians and services to move away from traditional risk categorisations; and conversely, the risk of a pendulum swing in which the focus of care swings from one approach to determining service priority and focus (e.g., diagnosis, formulation, risk and clinical care) to a new focus (e.g., suicide specific and non-clinical care), potentially supplanting the previous approach. This paper argues that the Prevention Paradox provides a useful mental model to support a shift in paradigm, whilst maintaining a balanced approach that incorporates new paradigms within the effective aspects of existing ones. The Prevention Paradox highlights the seemingly paradoxical situation where the greatest burden of disease or death is caused by those at low to moderate risk due their larger numbers. Current planning frameworks and resources do not support successful or sustainable adoption of these new approaches, leading to missed opportunities to prevent suicidal behaviours in healthcare. Adopting systems approaches to suicide prevention, such as the Zero Suicide Framework, implemented in a large mental health service in Australia and presented in this paper as a case study, can support a balanced approach of population- and individual-based suicide prevention efforts. Results demonstrate significant reductions in re-presentations with suicide attempts for consumers receiving this model of care; however, the increasing numbers of placements compromise the capacity of clinical teams to complete all components of standardised pathway of care. This highlights the need for review of resource planning frameworks and ongoing evaluations of the critical aspects of the interventions

Reply to Obegi, J.H. Distinguishing Prevention from Treatment in Suicide Prevention. Comment on “Turner et al. The Paradox of Suicide Prevention. <i>Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health</i> 2022, <i>19</i>, 14983”

One of the aims of our paper “The Paradox of Suicide Prevention” is to promote greater discourse on suicide prevention, with a particular focus on the mental health models used for the identification of, and interventions with, individuals who come into contact with tertiary mental health services [...

Additional file 1 of Meal support intervention for eating disorders: a mixed-methods systematic review

Supplementary Material