ArticleImplementation research and practice
Evaluating implementation preparedness for suicide screening and referral in a Nepali emergency department: A mixed-methods study.
Article in Implementation research and practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06094959 (Integrating Suicide Prevention Packages Into Task-shifted Mental Health Interventions in Low-resourced Contexts), 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.
Integrating Suicide Prevention Packages Into Task-shifted Mental Health Interventions in Low-resourced Contexts
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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Most research on appropriate, feasible, and effective suicide screening has excluded research conducted in non-Western and low-income settings. This study explores preparedness and co-designing a suicide screening and referral intervention in a Nepali emergency department (ED) using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Method: To assess implementation readiness and context, we conducted eight key informant interviews and four focus-group discussions with clinical staff along with 3 months of embedded ethnography. We also assessed clinical staff ( Results: Qualitatively, clinicians expressed hopelessness and reservations surrounding ED programs to prevent suicide given important system and social barriers. Additionally, they doubted their ability to meaningfully overcome broader structural issues in their patients' lives (e.g., poverty and family tension) that they believed more directly determined suicidal behavior and thwarted help seeking. They discussed practical and emotional motivators for doing suicide prevention work, which highlighted departmental leadership and deep teamwork that motivated action despite wider societal myths that suicide cannot easily be prevented. Quantitative assessments largely supported these findings, indicating shared beliefs that suicide prevention was important and supported by leadership. However, providers frequently endorsed suicide myths and noted barriers including difficult interdepartmental collaboration, limited confidence in suicide prevention communication and suicide screening. Conclusions: In under-resourced settings, staff must contend with competing responsibilities and complex structural causes of suicide and barriers to treatment. These can impede implementation of suicide screening interventions and must be integrated into the co-design of implementation strategy selection and deployment. Trial Registration: NCT06094959 clinicaltrials.gov.
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.