Stakeholder insights into implementing a systems-based suicide prevention program in regional and rural tasmanian communities.
Community
Evaluation
Regional and rural
Suicide prevention
Systems-based approach
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 12 2022
12 12 2022
Historique:
received:
03
11
2021
accepted:
24
11
2022
entrez:
12
12
2022
pubmed:
13
12
2022
medline:
15
12
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
With emerging evidence indicating that systems-based approaches help optimise suicide prevention efforts, the National Suicide Prevention Trial sought to gather evidence on the appropriateness of these approaches to prevent suicide among at-risk populations, in regional and rural communities throughout Australia. The Tasmanian component of the Trial implemented the LifeSpan systems framework across three distinct rural areas with priority populations of men aged 40-64 and people 65 and over. The University of Tasmania's Centre for Rural Health undertook a local-level evaluation of the Trial. To explore key stakeholder perceptions of implementing a systems-based suicide prevention program in regional and rural communities in Tasmania, Australia. This study utilised qualitative methods to explore in depth, stakeholder perspectives. Focus groups and interviews were conducted with 46 participants, comprising Trial Site Working Group members (n = 25), Tasmania's Primary Health Network employees (n = 7), and other key stakeholders (n = 14). Approximately half of participants had a lived experience of suicide. Data were thematically analysed using NVivo. Key themes centred on factors impacting implementation of the Trial. These included how the Trial was established in Tasmania; Working Group governance structures and processes; communication and engagement processes; reaching priority population groups; the LifeSpan model and activity development; and the effectiveness, reach and sustainability of activities. Communities were acutely aware of the need to address suicide in their communities, with the Trial providing resources and coordination needed for community engagement and action. Strict adherence to the Lifespan model was challenging at the community level, with planning and time needed to focus on strategies influencing whole or multiple systems, for example health system changes, means restriction. Perceived limitations around implementation concerned varied community buy-in and stakeholder engagement and involvement, with lack of role clarity cited as a barrier to implementation within Working Groups. Barriers delivering activities to priority population groups centred around socio-cultural and technological factors, literacy, and levels of public awareness. Working Groups preferred activities which build on available capital and resources and which meet the perceived needs within the whole community. Approaches sought to increase awareness of suicide and its prevention, relationships and partnerships, and the lived experience capacity in Working Groups and communities. Stakeholder insights of implementing the National Suicide Prevention Trial in regional and rural Tasmanian from this study can help guide future community-based suicide prevention efforts, in similar geographic areas and with high-risk groups.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36510183
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-14721-5
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-14721-5
pmc: PMC9746171
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2323Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Causes of death, Australia, 2019. In: Statistics on the number of deaths, by sex, selected age groups, and cause of death classified to the International classification of Diseases (ICD). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2020.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Suicide and intentional self-harm. Canberra: AIHW; 2020.
Parliament of Australia. Costs of Suicide. Canberra: Parliament of Australia; 2010.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 3303.0 Causes of Death, Australia 2019. 2020.
Bartone T, Hickie I, McGorry P. COVID-19 impact likely to lead to increased rates of suicide and Mental Illness Joint Statement. 2020.
Black Dog Institute. LifeSpan trials. Sydney: Black Dog Institute; 2018.
Black Dog Institute. Guidance for a Systems Approach to Suicide Prevention for Rural and Remote Communities in Australia. Sydney: Black Dog Institute; 2019.
Black Dog Institute. Methodology and evaluation. Sydney: Black Dog Institute; 2022.
Sutherland G, Milner A, Dwyer J, Bugeja L, Woodward A, Robinson J, Pirkis J. Implementation and evaluation of the victorian suicide Register. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2018;42(3):296–302.
doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.12725
Black Dog Institute. Outcomes to date. Sydney: Black Dog Institute; 2022.
Hegerl U, Wittmann M, Arensman E, van Audenhove C, Bouleau JH, van der Feltz-Cornelis C, Gusmao R, Kopp M, Löhr C, Maxwell M, et al. The ‘European Alliance Against Depression (EAAD)’: a multifaceted, community-based action programme against depression and suicidality. World J Biol Psychiatry. 2008;9(1):51–8.
doi: 10.1080/15622970701216681
Hegerl U, Wittenburg L, Arensman E, Van Audenhove C, Coyne JC, McDaid D, Feltz-Cornelis CMVD, Gusmão R, Kopp M, Maxwell M, et al: Optimizing suicide Prevention Programs and their implementation in Europe (OSPI Europe): an evidence-based multi-level approach. BMC public health 2009, 9.
Hegerl U, Rummel-Kluge C, Värnik A, Arensman E, Koburger N. Alliances against depression - A community based approach to target depression and to prevent suicidal behaviour. Neurosci Biobehavioral Rev. 2013;37(10 Pt 1):2404–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.009
Baker STE, Nicholas J, Shand F, Green R, Christensen H. A comparison of multi-component systems approaches to suicide prevention. Australasian Psychiatry. 2017;26(2):128–31.
doi: 10.1177/1039856217743888
Life in Mind. National Suicide Prevention Trial. Newcastle: Life in Mind; 2022.
University of Melbourne. National Suicide Prevention Trial: Final Evaluation Report. Melbourne: University of Melbourne; 2020.
Krysinska K, Batterham PJ, Tye M, Shand F, Calear AL, Cockayne N, Christensen H. Best strategies for reducing the suicide rate in Australia. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2016;50:115–8.
doi: 10.1177/0004867415620024
King K, Hall T, Oostermeijer S, Currier D. Community participation in Australia’s national suicide Prevention Trial. Aust J Prim Health. 2022;28(3):255–63.
doi: 10.1071/PY21083
Smith L, Purton T, Auckland S, Lees D, Mond J. Local evaluation of the tasmanian component of the national suicide Prevention Trial—Preliminary learnings. Aust J Rural Health. 2020;28(2):218–23.
doi: 10.1111/ajr.12620
Australian Bureau of Statistics. Causes of death, Australia, 2020. In: Statistics on the number of deaths, by sex, selected age groups, and cause of death classified to the International classification of Diseases (ICD). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics; 2021.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Deaths by suicide by remoteness areas. 2021.
Garrett AS. V.: Report to the tasmanian government on suicide in Tasmania. 1 January 2012–31 December 2018. Tasmanian Government Department of Health; 2021.
National Rural Health Alliance. Suicide in Rural and Remote Australia. 2021.
Australian Government. Modified Monash Model. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care; 2021.
Smith L, Purton T, Auckland S, Lees D, Mond J. Local evaluation of the Tasmanian Component of the national suicide Prevention Trial - Preliminary learnings. Australian J Rural Remote Health. 2020;28:218–23.
doi: 10.1111/ajr.12620
Grattidge L, Purton T, Mond J, Lees D, Auckland S. Participatory action research in suicide prevention program evaluation: opportunities and challenges from the national suicide prevention trial, Tasmania. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2021;45:311–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.13116 .
doi: 10.1111/1753-6405.13116
Perceval M, Reddy P, Ross V, Joiner T, Kolves K. Evaluation of the SCARF Well-Being and suicide Prevention Program for Rural Australian Communities. J Rural Health. 2020;36(2):247–54.
doi: 10.1111/jrh.12373
Morton KL, Atkin AJ, Corder K, Suhrcke M, Turner D, van Sluijs EMF. Engaging stakeholders and target groups in prioritising a public health intervention: the creating active School environments (CASE) online Delphi study. BMJ open. 2017;7(1):e013340–0.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013340
Primary Health Tasmania. Suicide prevention trial. Press Release; 2017.
Petkovic J, Riddle A, Akl EA, Khabsa J, Lytvyn L, Atwere P, Campbell P, Chalkidou K, Chang SM, Crowe S, et al. Protocol for the development of guidance for stakeholder engagement in health and healthcare guideline development and implementation. Syst Reviews. 2020;9(1):21.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-1272-5
World Health Organization. Preventing suicide: a community engagement toolkit. In.: World Health Organization; 2018.
Black Dog Institute. An evidence-based systems approach to suicide prevention: guidance on planning, commissioning and monitoring. In.; 2016.
Aoun S. Deliberate self-harm in rural western Australia: results of an intervention study. Aust N Z J Ment Health Nurs. 1999;8(2):65–73.
doi: 10.1046/j.1440-0979.1999.00133.x
Jones S, Walker C, Miles ACJ, De Silva E, Zimitat C. A rural, community-based suicide awareness and intervention program. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15(1):2972–2.
Jones M, Ferguson M, Walsh S, Martinez L, Marsh M, Cronin K, Procter N. Perspectives of rural health and human service practitioners following suicide prevention training programme in Australia: a thematic analysis. Health Soc Care Commun. 2018;26(3):356–63.
doi: 10.1111/hsc.12532
Hunt T, Wilson CJ, Woodward A, Caputi P, Wilson I. Intervention among suicidal men: future directions for Telephone Crisis Support Research. Perspective 2018, 16(1).
Pywell J, Vijaykumar S, Dodd A, Coventry L. Barriers to older adults’ uptake of mobile-based mental health interventions. Digit HEALTH. 2020;6:2055207620905422.
Bantjes J, Swartz L. The benefits of Robust Debate about the place of qualitative research in suicide Prevention. Qual Health Res. 2020;30(6):944–6.
doi: 10.1177/1049732320909104
Hjelmeland H, Knizek BL. Why we need qualitative research in Suicidology. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior. 2010;40(1):74–80.
doi: 10.1521/suli.2010.40.1.74
Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Adm policy mental health mental health Serv Res. 2015;42(5):533–44.
doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y
Roses in the Ocean. Lived Experience of Suicide. Brisbane: Roses in the Ocean; 2019.
Saunders B, Sim J, Kingston T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, Burroughs H, Jinks C. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity 2018, 52(4).
Bryman A: How many qualitative interviews is enough? Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research (pp. 18–20). National Center for Research Methods Review Papers 2012.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.
doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Black Dog Institute. Implementation plan for the systems approach to suicide prevention in NSW: Summary paper in. Sydney: Black Dog Institute; 2015.
Seidler ZE, Wilson MJ, Kealy D, Oliffe JL, Ogrodniczuk JS, Rice SM. Men’s Dropout from Mental Health Services: results from a survey of australian Men across the Life Span. Am J Men’s Health. 2021;15(3):15579883211014776.
doi: 10.1177/15579883211014776
Evangelista L, Steinhubl SR, Topol EJ. Digital health care for older adults. The Lancet. 2019;393(10180):1493.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30800-1
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Quality in Health Care 2007, 19.