Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35130951›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of mental health systems2022

Networks to strengthen community social capital for suicide prevention in regional Australia: the LifeSpan suicide prevention initiative.

Janet C Long, Colum Ruane, Louise A Ellis, Rebecca Lake, Anneke Le Roux, Luke Testa, Fiona Shand, Michelle Torok, Yvonne Zurynski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of mental health systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

9 authors.

Janet C LongAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia. Janet.long@mq.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0553-682X
Colum RuaneAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Louise A EllisAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Rebecca LakeAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Anneke Le RouxAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Luke TestaAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.
Fiona ShandBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Michelle TorokBlack Dog Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Yvonne ZurynskiAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.

Funding

paul ramsay foundation/black dog institute 19/333
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMental health services are fragmented in Australia leading to a priority being placed on whole-of-community approaches and integration. We describe the LifeSpan suicide prevention intervention developed by the Black Dog Institute that draws upon nine evidence-based community-wide strategies. We examined the suicide prevention Collaborative group at each site. We evaluated how the social capital of the community and service providers changed, and how the brokerage roles of the Collaborative affected integration of effort.

methodsThis was a two phase, explanatory mixed methods study. Participants were LifeSpan Coordinators, The Collaborative and working group members at four LifeSpan sites in New South Wales (three metropolitan/regional, one regional/rural). Quantitative social network data was collected through an online survey and analysed using Gephi software. Qualitative data through focus groups and interviews with Lifespan Coordinators and community stakeholders.

resultsThe social network survey was administered in three sites and was completed by 83 people. Data gave quantitative evidence of increased engagement across key stakeholders in each region who had not previously been working together. Nominations of other collaborators showed this network extended beyond the formal structures of The Collaborative. LifeSpan Coordinators were empirically identified as key players in the networks. Qualitative data was collected from 53 individuals (18 interviews and five focus groups) from across all sites. Participants identified benefits of this collaborative approach including greater capacity to run activities, better communication between groups, identification of "who's who" locally, improvement in the integration of priorities, services and activities, and personal support for previously isolated members. LifeSpan Coordinators were key to the smooth running of The Collaborative. This may represent a risk to sustainability if they left. The collaboration model that suited metropolitan sites was difficult to sustain in rural sites, but gains were seen in better coordinated postvention efforts.

conclusionLifeSpan Coordinators were noted to be exceptional people who magnified the benefits of collaboration. Geographic proximity was a potent driver of social capital. Initial engagement with local stakeholders was seen as essential but time-consuming work in the implementation phase. Coordinators reported this important work was not always acknowledged as part of their formal role.

Indexed as

Integrated careSocial capitalSocial network analysisSuicide prevention

Identifiers

PMID35130951
PMCPMC8822835

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.