ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Reducing suicides in mental healthcare: results from a 4-year follow-up implementation study in the Netherlands (SUPRANET).
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In 2016, the SUicide PRevention Action NETwork (SUPRANET) was launched. The SUPRANET intervention aims at better implementing the suicide prevention guideline. An implementation study was developed to evaluate the impact of SUPRANET over time on three outcomes: 1) suicides, 2) registration of suicide attempts, and 3) professionals' knowledge and adherence to the guideline. Methods: This study included 13 institutions, and used an uncontrolled longitudinal prospective design, collecting biannual data on a 2-level structure (institutional and team level). Suicides and suicide attempts were extracted from data systems. Professionals' knowledge and adherence were measured using a self-report questionnaire. A three-step interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) was performed for the first two outcomes. Step 1 assessed whether institutions executed the SUPRANET intervention as intended. Step 2 examined if institutions complied with the four guideline recommendations. Based on steps 1 and 2, institutions were classified as below or above average and after that, included as moderators in step 3 to examine the effect of SUPRANET over time compared to the baseline. The third outcome was analyzed with a longitudinal multilevel regression analysis, and tested for moderation. Results: After institutions were labeled based on their efforts and investments made (below average vs above average), we found no statistically significant difference in suicides (standardized mortality ratio) between the two groups relative to the baseline. Institutions labeled as above average did register significantly more suicide attempts directly after the start of the intervention (78.8 per 100,000 patients, Conclusion: Institutions labeled as above average registered significantly more suicide attempts and also better adhered to the guideline compared with institutions that had performed less well. Although no convincing intervention effect on suicides was found within the study period, we do think that this network is potentially able to reduce suicides. Continuous investments and fully implementing as many guideline recommendations as possible are essential to achieve the biggest drop in suicides.
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.