Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40851886›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in health services2025

Illuminating the "black box" of complex suicide prevention interventions: towards a theory of implementation using the normalisation process theory.

Sadhvi Krishnamoorthy, Gregory Armstrong, Sharna Mathieu, Victoria Ross, Kairi Kõlves

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sadhvi KrishnamoorthyAustralian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Suicide Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Gregory ArmstrongCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, The University of Melbourne, Carlton, VIC, Australia.
Sharna MathieuAustralian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Suicide Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Victoria RossAustralian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Suicide Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Kairi KõlvesAustralian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention, World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Research and Training in Suicide Prevention, School of Applied Psychology, Griffith University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Although there has been some investigation into what works in suicide prevention, exploration into the mechanisms by which implementation strategies impact outcomes or how and why strategies work remains largely under-studied. Consequently, implementation efforts often lack a clear strategy, and may contribute little toward the desired outcomes. This study aims to explore and examine the role of context and mechanisms involved in the implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions. Methods and materials: In-depth qualitative interviews were used to explore relevant stakeholder experiences of implementing complex suicide prevention interventions. Stakeholders (nine intervention leaders, five implementors and two lived experience advocates) from six interventions were purposively recruited for their experiences involved in implementing complex interventions in real-world settings. The Normalisation Process Theory translational coding manual was used to map data related to the primary and secondary constructs defined in the theory and its extensions. Results: Three domains pertaining to implementation context, mechanisms, and outcomes (CMO) were explored. Participants expressed their agency by: using contextual influences to modify the design and plan for delivery; making adaptations to the form and function of interventions and characteristics of the implementation environment to suit intervention needs; and, leveraging the intervention environment to integrate the intervention into existing systems and practices. Activities and strategies served multiple mechanisms involved in: understanding what the work entails; who does the work; developing the capacity to implement the work; and, understanding the work. An interdependent and interacting relationship between mechanisms emerged. Outcomes related to: change in existing practices; the ways in which people are organised; changes in existing norms; and, incorporation of the intervention into daily practice were observed. Conclusion: This study is notable in its exploration of mechanisms underlying implementation of complex suicide prevention interventions. Data from this study can help inform the development, refinement and use of specific implementation strategies and understand the applicability of strategies across varied contexts. The study also demonstrates the use of an implementation theory to inform practice and potentially contributes to an understanding of what works, why, for whom and in what context. There is a need for a paradigm shift towards the use of more theory based and informed approaches to understand causal links between implementation strategies, context, mechanisms, and outcomes.

Indexed as

complex interventioncontextimplementation sciencemechanismsnormalisation process theorysuicide preventiontheory-informed

Identifiers

PMID40851886
PMCPMC12367768

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.