Citation

Pirkis J, Spittal MJ, Cox G, Robinson J, Cheung YT, Studdert DM. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2013; 42(2): 541-548.

Affiliation

Centre for Health Policy, Programs and Economics, Melbourne School of Population Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, Orygen Youth Health Research Centre, Centre for Youth Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia and Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2013, International Epidemiological Association, Publisher Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/ije/dyt021

PMID

23505253

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Certain sites have gained notoriety as 'hotspots' for suicide by jumping. Structural interventions (e.g. barriers and safety nets) have been installed at some of these sites. Individual studies examining the effectiveness of these interventions have been underpowered.Method We conducted a meta-analysis, pooling data from nine studies. RESULTS: Following the interventions, there was an 86% reduction in jumping suicides per year at the sites in question (95% CI 79% to 91%). There was a 44% increase in jumping suicides per year at nearby sites (95% CI 15% to 81%), but the net gain was a 28% reduction in all jumping suicides per year in the study cities (95% CI 13% to 40%). CONCLUSIONS: Structural interventions at 'hotspots' avert suicide at these sites. Some increases in suicide are evident at neighbouring sites, but there is an overall gain in terms of a reduction in all suicides by jumping.

Language: en