ArticleJMIR formative research2021
Acceptability, Safety, and Resonance of the Pilot Digital Suicide Prevention Campaign "Better Off With You": Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partnering with people with lived experience in eating disorder research: conceptual and practical considerations.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Lived Experience Participation in Suicide Prevention Activities in Australia, a Scoping Review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Interpersonal Theory of Suicide posits that there are three key elements of suicidal behavior: perceived burdensomeness, thwarted belongingness, and the acquired capability for suicide. The digital campaign Better Off With You was developed to directly challenge the idea of perceived burdensomeness among people who are contemplating suicide in 2 communities within Australia.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to explore the needs and preferences of people with lived experience of suicidal thoughts and actions to inform the development of Better Off With You.
methodsThis study involved a series of focus groups that aimed to discuss campaign messaging, scope, and approach. People with lived experience of suicidal thoughts and actions attended the focus groups. After the completion of initial focus groups, the results informed the creation of campaign collateral by creative agencies. Early versions of the campaign collateral were then presented in the user testing sessions. Transcriptions were analyzed via thematic analysis.
resultsIn total, 13 participants attended the focus groups and 14 attended the user testing sessions. The following three overarching themes were presented: acceptability, safety, and resonance. Participants believed that suicide is a serious and ongoing issue in their communities and welcomed a localized suicide prevention focus via peer-to-peer storytelling. The idea of perceived burdensomeness required clarification but was perceived as acceptable and relevant. Participants seemed drawn toward peer narratives that they perceived to be authentic, genuine, and believable as given by real people with lived experience. Campaign messaging needs to be clear and empathetic while directly talking about suicide. Participants did not anticipate any significant negative or harmful impact from any campaign videos and highlighted the importance of providing appropriate help-seeking information.
conclusionsThis iterative study provided important insights and knowledge about peer-to-peer storytelling in suicide prevention campaigns. Future campaigns should involve simple messaging, be validating and empathetic, and consider including a lived experience perspective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.