Citation

DeBeer B, Mignogna J, Talbot M, Villarreal E, Mohatt N, Borah E, Russell PD, Bryan CJ, Monteith LL, Bongiovanni K, Hoffmire C, Peterson AL, Heise J, Baack S, Weinberg K, Polk M, Benzer JK. Psychiatr. Serv. 2024; ePub(ePub): ePub.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, American Psychiatric Association)

DOI

10.1176/appi.ps.20230173

PMID

38807579

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Suicide is a significant public health concern. About 48,000 individuals died by suicide in 2021 in the United States, and approximately one in 100 deaths globally are due to suicide. Continuing efforts in program development and evaluation are vital to preventing suicide. Multiple frameworks have been developed to reduce suicide rates, but they have not been compared to assess their comprehensiveness, nor have their components been classified.

METHODS: In 2019, the authors conducted a narrative review of the literature and identified four major frameworks for suicide prevention: the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Suicide Prevention Program, the Defense Suicide Prevention Program of the U.S. Department of Defense, Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care, and the technical package developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Program components for these frameworks were identified and classified by using two prevention strategy classification systems: the National Academy of Medicine's (NAM's) continuum-of-care model and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA's) prevention model.

RESULTS: The cross-program comparison revealed that no single program included all components of suicide prevention programs. However, the VA program was the most comprehensive in terms of the number of components and their spread across prevention strategy classifications. The programs used few components categorized under NAM's promotion or selective prevention strategy classifications. The SAMHSA prevention strategy classifications of information dissemination, community-based processes, and positive alternatives were also used infrequently.

CONCLUSIONS: Organizations, health care systems, and policy makers may use these findings as they develop, improve, and implement suicide prevention programs.

Language: en

Keywords

Self-harm; Suicide prevention; Community mental health services; Program evaluation; Administration and management