ArticleHealth psychology and behavioral medicine2023
A mixed-methods evaluation of the acceptability and fidelity of the James' Place model for men experiencing suicidal crisis.
Article in Health psychology and behavioral medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06810674 (Get Out of Your Head 2.0), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Get Out of Your Head 2.0: Evaluation of an Online Prevention Campaign and Updated Website for Men
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Research supports development of informal, community-based suicide prevention interventions that can be tailored to suit men's unmet needs. The James' Place model (JPM) is a community-based, clinical suicide prevention intervention for men experiencing suicidal crisis. Evidence supports the efficacy of the JPM and there are plans to expand to additional sites across the UK. This study evaluates therapists perceived acceptability of the JPM, and if fidelity to the planned delivery of the model is maintained within therapeutic practice. Method: A mixed-methods design was used. Descriptive analyses of 30 completed intervention cases were examined to review fidelity of the model against the intervention delivery plan. Eight therapists took part in semi-structured interviews between November 2021 and March 2022 exploring the perceived acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to delivering the JPM. Results: Descriptive analyses of James' Place audit notes revealed high levels of adherence to the JPM amongst therapists, but highlighted components of the model needed to be tailored according to individual men's needs. Thematic analysis led to the development of five themes. The first theme, Conclusion: The findings evidence therapist's acceptability and their moderate adherence to the JPM. Flexibility in delivery of the JPM enables adaptation of the model and co-production of therapy to meet men's needs. Implications for clinical practice are discussed.
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.