Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27277833›Full record

SynthesisBMC psychiatry2016

Mechanisms of brief contact interventions in clinical populations: a systematic review.

Allison Milner, Matthew J Spittal, Nav Kapur, Katrina Witt, Jane Pirkis, Greg Carter

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC psychiatry, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03325478 (Qualitative Assessment of the French Brief Contact Intervention "Stay in Contact" in Suicide Prevention), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT03325478 completednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Qualitative Assessment of the French Brief Contact Intervention "Stay in Contact" in Suicide Prevention

TypeobservationalSponsorCentral Hospital, Nancy, FranceRan2017 to 2017Enrolled60ConditionsSuicide and Self-harmArmsOver the phone interviews on the BCI "Stay in Contact"
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Interventions for self-harm in children and adolescents.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Pay It Forward: Analysis of a novel peer-to-peer support initiative for individuals receiving treatment for head and neck cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  15. Suicide Risk Following Psychiatric Hospitalization: A Narrative Review and Conceptual Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Allison MilnerWork, Health and Wellbeing Unit, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, 3125, VIC, Australia. allison.milner@deakin.edu.au.
Matthew J SpittalCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, VIC, Australia.
Nav KapurCentre for Suicide Prevention, Centre for Mental Health and Safety, Institute of Brain Behaviour and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Katrina WittWork, Health and Wellbeing Unit, Centre for Population Health Research, School of Health and Social Development, Deakin University, Burwood, 3125, VIC, Australia.
Jane PirkisCentre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, VIC, Australia.
Greg CarterCentre for Brain and Mental Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBrief Contact Interventions (BCIs) have been of increasing interest to suicide prevention clinicians, researchers and policy makers. However, there has been no systematic assessment into the mechanisms underpinning BCIs. The aim of the current paper is to provide a systematic review of the proposed mechanisms underpinning BCIs across trial studies.

methodA systematic review was conducted of trials using BCIs (post-discharge telephone contacts; emergency or crisis cards; and postcard or letter contacts) for suicide or self-harm. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the reference lists of all past reviews in the area. Secondary searches of reference lists were undertaken.

resultsSixteen papers provided a description of possible mechanisms which we grouped into three main areas: social support; suicide prevention literacy, and; learning alternative coping behaviours. After assessment of the studies and considering the plausibility of mechanisms, we suggest social support and improved suicide prevention literacy are the most likely mechanisms underpinning BCIs.

conclusionResearchers need to better articulate and measure the mechanisms they believe underpin BCIs in trial studies. Understanding more about the mechanisms of BCIs' will inform the development of future interventions for self-harm and suicide.

Indexed as

Adaptation, PsychologicalHealth LiteracySocial SupportSuicide PreventionCrisis InterventionHumansSelf-Injurious BehaviorSuicideBrief contact interventionsEmergency departmentHelp seekingLettersPhone callsPostcardSelf-harmSocial supportSuicide

Identifiers

PMID27277833
PMCPMC4898450

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.