Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35422050›Full record

SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2022

A mixed-methods systematic review of suicide prevention interventions involving multisectoral collaborations.

Tania Pearce, Myfanwy Maple, Sarah Wayland, Kathy McKay, Alan Woodward, Anna Brooks, Anthony Shakeshaft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co-produced community-based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Co-Design or Faux-Design? Reflections on Co-Designing Safe Spaces for People in Emotional Distress or Suicidal Crisis in Australia.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Participatory Design in Suicide Prevention: A Qualitative Study of International Students' Experiences of Adapting the LivingWorks safeTALK Programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  12. A qualitative evaluation of a co-design process involving young people at risk of suicide.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  13. Are codesigned programmes more difficult to implement? A qualitative study of staff perceptions on the implementation of a new youth mental health programme.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Co-creation of new knowledge: Good fortune or good management?Research involvement and engagement · 2022
    Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Tania PearceSchool of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. tpearce7@myune.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8772-5888
Myfanwy MapleSchool of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Sarah WaylandSchool of Health, University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Kathy McKayPublic Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Alan WoodwardCentre for Mental Health, School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia.
Anna BrooksLifeline Research Foundation, Canberra, ACT, 2601, Australia.
Anthony ShakeshaftNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick Campus, 22-32 King Street, Randwick, NSW, 2031, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGovernments and third-sector organizations (TSOs) require support to reduce suicide mortality through funding of suicide prevention services and innovative research. One way is for researchers to engage individuals and services in multisectoral collaborations, to collaboratively design, develop and test suicide prevention services and programmes. However, despite widespread support, to date, it remains unclear as to the extent to which stakeholders are being included in the research process, or if they are, how these partnerships occur in practice. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence of multisectoral collaborations within the field of suicide prevention, the types of stakeholders involved and their level of involvement.

methodsThe authors conducted a strategic PRISMA-compliant search of five electronic databases to retrieve literature published between January 2008 and July 2021. Hand-searching of reference lists of key systematic reviews was also completed. Of the 7937 papers retrieved, 16 papers finally met the inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed; however, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed.

resultsOnly one paper included engagement of stakeholders across the research cycle (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation). Most stakeholders were represented by citizens or communities, with only a small number of TSOs involved in multisectoral collaborations. Stakeholder level of involvement focused on the co-design or co-evaluation stage.

conclusionThis review revealed a lack of evidence of multisectoral collaborations being established between researchers and stakeholders in the field of suicide prevention research, even while such practice is being espoused in government policies and funding guidelines. Of the evidence that is available, there is a lack of quality studies documenting the collaborative research process. Also, results showed that the inclusion of co-researchers from communities or organizations is defined as co-creation, but further analysis revealed that collaboration was not consistent across the duration of projects. Researchers and practitioners should consider issues of power and equity in multisectoral collaborations and encourage increased engagement with TSOs, to rigorously research and evaluate suicide prevention services.

Indexed as

Health Services ResearchSuicide PreventionGovernmentHumansOrganizationsQualitative ResearchCo-creationCo-designCo-evaluationCo-ideationCo-implementationConsumersMultisectoral collaborationsStakeholderSuicide prevention

Identifiers

PMID35422050
PMCPMC9009036

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.