Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36757436›Full record

Trial reportSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2023

A blended face-to-face and smartphone intervention to improve suicide prevention literacy and help-seeking intentions among construction workers: a randomised controlled trial.

Tania L King, Ludmila Fleitas Alfonzo, Philip Batterham, Andrew Mackinnon, Chris Lockwood, Samuel Harvey, Brian Kelly, Helen Lingard, Laura Cox, Tony D LaMontagne

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

Trial report in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Tania L KingCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, Australia. tking@unimelb.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1201-2485
Ludmila Fleitas AlfonzoCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, Australia.
Philip BatterhamAustralian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Andrew MackinnonCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3010, Australia.
Chris LockwoodMATES in Construction, Spring Hill, Australia.
Samuel HarveyUniversity of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Brian KellyUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia.
Helen LingardRMIT University, Melbourne, Australia.
Laura CoxMATES in Construction, Spring Hill, Australia.
Tony D LaMontagneDeakin University, Geelong, Australia.
The University of Melbourne · AUAustralian National University · AUDeakin University · AURMIT University · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Australian Research Council DE200100607National Health and Medical Research Council 1158707National Health and Medical Research Council APP1134499
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIn Australia and elsewhere, suicide rates among construction workers remain high. Construction workplaces are thus an important setting for targeted suicide prevention programs. This study aimed to compare suicide prevention literacy and help-seeking intentions among participants receiving face-to-face suicide prevention training, with those receiving face-to-face training augmented by a smartphone application.

methodsA two-arm randomised controlled trial of a smartphone suicide prevention intervention was conducted among construction workers in four Australian states (trial registration number: ACTRN12619000625178). All participants received face-to-face training and were randomised to the control condition (face-to-face only, n = 575), or MATESmobile condition (face-to-face + smartphone application, n = 509). Surveys administered at baseline and 3-month follow-up measured suicide prevention literacy and help-seeking intentions for personal/emotional problems and suicidal thoughts. A mixed-model repeated measures (MMRM) analysis included all 1084 randomised participants.

resultsOutcomes did not differ significantly for suicide prevention literacy, nor help-seeking intentions from formal sources, informal sources outside the workplace, or no one (did not intend to seek help from anyone). However, relative to those in the control condition, those in the MATESmobile group showed greater increase in help-seeking intentions for emotional problems from a MATES worker/Connector (mean difference 0.54, 95% CI 0.22-0.87) and help-seeking intentions for suicidal thoughts from a workmate (mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.10-0.83) or MATES worker/Connector (mean difference 0.47, 95% CI 0.09-0.85).

conclusionResults indicate that the MATESmobile application, together with face-to-face training, is beneficial in enhancing help-seeking intentions from MATES workers/Connectors and workmates to a greater extent than face-to-face training only. While this research provides some evidence that smartphone applications may support suicide prevention training, further research is needed.

Indexed as

Construction IndustrySuicide PreventionAustraliaHumansIntentionLiteracySmartphoneInterventionRandomised controlled trialSuicide preventionWorkplace

Identifiers

PMID36757436
PMCPMC9909155
OpenAlexW4319657199

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.