ArticleJAMA network open2025
Outcomes and Cost-Benefit of a National Suicide Reattempt Prevention Program.
Article in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Economic evaluations of preventive interventions for self-harm and suicide: a systematic review.Psychological medicine · 2026Pooled it
- The VigilanS-Prison programme: a pilot study of a brief contact intervention for reducing suicidal behaviours in prisons (2021-2024).BMC public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Suicide attempts (SA) are a major public health concern and a preventable cause of premature death with a significant societal cost. Suicide reattempt (SR) rates are high in the postdischarge period for an SA. Brief contact interventions (BCIs) aim to prevent SR by recontacting patients after discharge through crisis cards, calls, letters, or messages. A nationwide BCI was deployed in 6 French regions between 2015 and 2017. Objective: To assess the outcomes and the cost benefit of the program in reducing SR risk within 12 months after discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective multicenter cohort study using nationwide data from the French health insurance database and emergency department surveillance system. Patients exposed to the program between 2015 and 2017 were matched 1:1 with unexposed patients based on age, sex, history of SA, and diagnosis codes using propensity scores and followed up for 12 months. Survival and cost-benefit analyses were conducted in [month to month] 2022. Exposure: Participation in the program, including structured follow-up using crisis cards, telephone calls, and/or postcards for up to 6 months after discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was time to first SR or suicide-related death within 12 months. The secondary outcome was the number of SRs and cost savings. Results: Among 23 146 individuals, 14 504 (62.6%) were female, 12 244 (52.9%) had no history of SA, and the mean (SD) age was 39 (17) years. Exposure to the program was associated with a lower risk of SR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.59-0.67). This association was consistent regardless of patients' history of SAs (aHR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57-0.71 for those without prior attempts; aHR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.56-0.66 for those with prior attempts) and appeared greater among female participants (aHR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.54-0.68) than male participants (aHR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.61-0.76). The program yielded a return on investment of €2.06 (95% CI, €1.58-€2.50) per euro spent. Conclusion and Relevance: In this cohort study, exposure to the program was associated with a reduced risk of SR and favorable economic outcomes.
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.