Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29444769›Full record

Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2018

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Self-Help Program for Suicidal Thinking in an Australian Community Sample: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Bregje Aj van Spijker, Aliza Werner-Seidler, Philip J Batterham, Andrew Mackinnon, Alison L Calear, John A Gosling, Julia Reynolds, Ad Jfm Kerkhof, Daniela Solomon, Fiona Shand and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
13.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Psychosocial interventions for self-harm in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Bregje Aj van SpijkerCentre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8124-2559
Aliza Werner-SeidlerBlack Dog Institute, Department of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-9046-6159
Philip J BatterhamCentre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4547-6876
Andrew MackinnonBlack Dog Institute, Department of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0831-9801
Alison L CalearCentre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7028-725X
John A GoslingCentre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4831-0190
Julia ReynoldsCentre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9910-0455
Ad Jfm KerkhofEMGO Institute for Health Care Research, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-1701-5332
Daniela SolomonBlack Dog Institute, Department of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2360-1645
Fiona ShandBlack Dog Institute, Department of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6765-228X
Helen ChristensenBlack Dog Institute, Department of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0435-2065
Australian National University · AUBlack Dog Institute · AUAmsterdam Public Health · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTreatment for suicidality can be delivered online, but evidence for its effectiveness is needed.

objectiveThe goal of our study was to examine the effectiveness of an online self-help intervention for suicidal thinking compared to an attention-matched control program.

methodsA 2-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with assessment at postintervention, 6, and, 12 months. Through media and community advertizing, 418 suicidal adults were recruited to an online portal and were delivered the intervention program (Living with Deadly Thoughts) or a control program (Living Well). The primary outcome was severity of suicidal thinking, assessed using the Columbia Suicide Severity Rating Scale.

resultsIntention-to-treat analyses showed significant reductions in the severity of suicidal thinking at postintervention, 6, and 12 months. However, no overall group differences were found.

conclusionsLiving with Deadly Thoughts was of no greater effectiveness than the control group. Further investigation into the conditions under which this program may be beneficial is now needed. Limitations of this trial include it being underpowered given the effect size ultimately observed, a high attrition rate, and the inability of determining suicide deaths or of verifying self-reported suicide attempts.

trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000410752; https://www.anzctr.org.au/ Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364016 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6vK5FvQXy); Universal Trial Number U1111-1141-6595.

Indexed as

Suicidal IdeationAdolescentAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansInternetMaleMiddle AgedSelf-Help GroupsYoung Adultpsychosocial interventionsrandomized controlled trialsuicide

Identifiers

PMID29444769
PMCPMC5830610
OpenAlexW2786928256

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.