The Effect of Explicit Suicide Language in Engagement With a Suicide Prevention Search Page Help-Seeking Prompt: Nonrandomized Trial.

Google Google Ads advertisement advertisements campaign campaigns distress engagement explicit wording help seeking information seeking internet search mental health messaging prevention signage prompt prompts search searching suicidal suicide suicide prevention

Journal

JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
19 Mar 2024
Historique:
received: 03 07 2023
accepted: 22 10 2023
revised: 02 10 2023
medline: 19 3 2024
pubmed: 19 3 2024
entrez: 19 3 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Given that signage, messaging, and advertisements (ads) are the gateway to many interventions in suicide prevention, it is important that we understand what type of messaging works best for whom. We investigated whether explicitly mentioning suicide increases engagement using internet ads by investigating engagement with campaigns with different categories of keywords searched, which may reflect different cognitive states. We ran a 2-arm study Australia-wide, with or without ads featuring explicit suicide wording. We analyzed whether there were differences in engagement for campaigns with explicit and nonexplicit ads for low-risk (distressed but not explicitly suicidal), high-risk (explicitly suicidal), and help-seeking for suicide keywords. Our analyses revealed that having explicit wording has opposite effects, depending on the search terms used: explicit wording reduced the engagement rate for individuals searching for low-risk keywords but increased engagement for those using high-risk keywords. The findings suggest that individuals who are aware of their suicidality respond better to campaigns that explicitly use the word "suicide." We found that individuals who search for low-risk keywords also respond to explicit ads, suggesting that some individuals who are experiencing suicidality search for low-risk keywords.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Given that signage, messaging, and advertisements (ads) are the gateway to many interventions in suicide prevention, it is important that we understand what type of messaging works best for whom.
OBJECTIVE OBJECTIVE
We investigated whether explicitly mentioning suicide increases engagement using internet ads by investigating engagement with campaigns with different categories of keywords searched, which may reflect different cognitive states.
METHODS METHODS
We ran a 2-arm study Australia-wide, with or without ads featuring explicit suicide wording. We analyzed whether there were differences in engagement for campaigns with explicit and nonexplicit ads for low-risk (distressed but not explicitly suicidal), high-risk (explicitly suicidal), and help-seeking for suicide keywords.
RESULTS RESULTS
Our analyses revealed that having explicit wording has opposite effects, depending on the search terms used: explicit wording reduced the engagement rate for individuals searching for low-risk keywords but increased engagement for those using high-risk keywords.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
The findings suggest that individuals who are aware of their suicidality respond better to campaigns that explicitly use the word "suicide." We found that individuals who search for low-risk keywords also respond to explicit ads, suggesting that some individuals who are experiencing suicidality search for low-risk keywords.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38502162
pii: v11i1e50283
doi: 10.2196/50283
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e50283

Informations de copyright

©Sandersan Onie, Susanne Oliver Armstrong, Natasha Josifovski, Patrick Berlinquette, Nicola Livingstone, Sarah Holland, Coco Finemore, Nyree Gale, Emma Elder, George Laggis, Cassandra Heffernan, Adam Theobald, Michelle Torok, Fiona Shand, Mark Larsen. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (https://mental.jmir.org), 19.03.2024.

Auteurs

Sandersan Onie (S)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Faculty of Psychology, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Indonesia.

Susanne Oliver Armstrong (SO)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Natasha Josifovski (N)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Patrick Berlinquette (P)

BERLIN SEM, New York, NY, United States.

Nicola Livingstone (N)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Sarah Holland (S)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Coco Finemore (C)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Nyree Gale (N)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Emma Elder (E)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

George Laggis (G)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Cassandra Heffernan (C)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Adam Theobald (A)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Michelle Torok (M)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Fiona Shand (F)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Mark Larsen (M)

Black Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Classifications MeSH