ArticleBMC public health2025
Preventing suicides on the railways: learning from lived and living experiences.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of suicide means restriction: an overview of systematic reviews.BMJ mental health · 2025Pooled it
- Experiences of receiving a bystander intervention during a suicide attempt on the railways.BJPsych open · 2026Article
- Suicide Prevention Measures at High-Risk Locations: A Goal-Directed Motivation Perspective.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
backgroundDespite increasing recognition of the crucial role of lived/ing experience in shaping suicide prevention policy and practice, the perspectives of people who have considered or attempted suicide by train are seldom captured in analyses of what could reduce suicides on the railways. The aim of this study was to explore lived/ing experience perceptions of what types of approaches are effective or ineffective in this context, and why.
methodsWe carried out 1) in-depth qualitative interviews with 34 individuals who had attempted or contemplated suicide on the railways; 2) an online survey investigating lived/ing experiences of suicidality at rail locations (N = 269); 3) an online ethnography of content relating to train/rail suicide from different online spaces including 'pro-choice' forums and reddit (254 posts and 1228 associated comments).
resultsSeveral measures to prevent suicide on the railways were identified-and critiqued-in lived/ing experience accounts. These included strategies to challenge dominant cultural narratives around railway suicide (e.g. by shifting the focus from the lethality of this method to its impact on train drivers and others); environmental measures to restrict access to means and/or create a safer and more positive atmosphere; and increasing opportunities for help-seeking and 'helpful' third-party interventions. However, considering what works for whom, and when, emerged as crucial. The challenges of preventing rail suicides against a backdrop of severely stretched mental health services were also repeatedly highlighted.
conclusionsThe perspectives of people with lived/ing experiences, whilst far from homogenous, provide crucial insights into the potential value and unintended consequences of different measures to prevent suicides on the railways. Our findings reiterate the need for comprehensive suicide prevention strategies, targeting different stages of the suicidal process.
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.