ArticleInjury epidemiology2025
The design and implementation of an innovative indicated suicide prevention service in Melbourne.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSuicide prevention strategies are targeted at three levels: the general population (Universal), persons at risk (Selected), and persons who have attempted suicide or have suicidal ideation (Indicated). This study describes the implementation of an innovative indicated suicide prevention service that prioritizes peer and psychosocial support at one of Australia's largest mental health services. The purpose of this paper is threefold. (1) To describe the process of designing and implementing an innovative indicated suicide prevention service in Melbourne (2) To compare the implementation framework developed around it with other relevant frameworks and (3) To describe its stages of care.
resultsBased on the activities undertaken by the 'project champion' in designing and implementing Clayton HOPE, a pragmatic framework of implementation (PFI) was developed. The PFI included six steps. 1: Determine client needs; 2: Plan the model of care; 3: Determine the workforce and other resource requirements to achieve client needs; 4: Establish the workforce and finalize the team; 5: Facilitate stakeholder buy-in and 6: Regular monitoring and evaluation. The steps of the PFI, fit within the Quality Implementation Framework, albeit in a different sequence, owing to variations in settings, organizational circumstances, and readiness for change. The PFI also enhances the Levels of Change model by including additional requirements. A five-stage model of care was developed and implemented. They are 1: Early engagement and empathetic support (within 24 h of referral); 2: Assessment of psychosocial needs and suicidal risk (within 72 h of referral) 3: Construction of a personal safety plan (within 7 days of referral) 4: Implementation of the personal safety plan and risk management (week 2 - week12) and 5: Discharge and handover to ongoing supports (12 weeks from enrollment).
conclusionsThe main implications of this work are twofold: (1) The implementation of innovative models of care can be achieved by a 'project champion' with the relevant experience, authority and determination when funding is available and (2) Indicated suicide prevention models of care can strike a balance between clinical and non-clinical interventions that are tailored to client needs.
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.