ReviewBJPsych open2022
Effectiveness of distance-based suicide interventions: multi-level meta-analysis and systematic review.
Review in BJPsych open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Technology-based suicide prevention: An umbrella review.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2024Review
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 use of distance-based interventions (DBIs) to reduce suicidal ideation and behaviours are an increasingly relevant form of intervention. DBIs are more affordable, scalable and available than traditional face-to-face interventions, helping to narrow the gap between needed and provided care.
aimsTo evaluate the overall effectiveness of DBIs against suicidal ideation and behaviours.
methodWe systematically searched Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed for all DBIs primarily aimed at reducing suicidal ideation and behaviours. Data were analysed with a robust variance estimation corrected, multi-level meta-analysis.
resultsWe found 38 studies, reporting 110 outcomes. Effectiveness in reducing suicidal ideation was low (standardised mean difference -0.174, 95% CI -0.238 to -0.110). DBIs were significantly less effective against suicidal behaviours than against suicidal ideation, although still effective (standardised mean difference -0.059, 95% CI -0.087 to -0.032). Human involvement had no significant effect on effectiveness.
conclusionsDespite low effectiveness, DBIs might play a role in large-scale prevention efforts against suicidal ideation within a stepped care approach. Further, DBIs may be helpful in expanding mental health services in low- and middle-income countries with otherwise limited access to mental healthcare. Although the evidence for DBIs efficacy is well grounded, the technical and scientific evaluation of DBIs regarding their set up, functionality and components needs to be addressed in future studies.
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.