Background Choice of suicide method can strongly influence the outcome of suicidal behaviour, and is an important aspect of the process and planning involved in a suicide attempt. Yet, the reasons why individuals consider, choose or discard particular methods are not well understood. Aims This is the first study to explore method choices among people with a history of suicidal behaviour and individuals who have experienced, but not enacted, suicidal thoughts. Method Via an online survey, we gathered open-ended data about choice of methods in relation to suicidal thoughts and behaviours, including reasons for and against specific means of harm. Results A total of 712 respondents had attempted suicide, and a further 686 experienced suicidal thoughts (but not acted on them). Self-poisoning was the most commonly contemplated and used method of suicide, but most respondents had considered multiple methods. Method choices when contemplating suicide included a broader range of means than those used in actual attempts, and more unusual methods, particularly if perceived to be lethal, ‘easy’, quick, accessible and/or painless. Methods used in suicide attempts were, above all, described as having been accessible at the time, and were more commonly said to have been chosen impulsively. Key deterrents against the use of specific methods were the presence of and impact on other people, especially loved ones, and fears of injury and survival. Conclusions Exploration of method choices can offer novel insights into the transition from suicidal ideation to behaviour. Results underscore the need for preventative measures to restrict access to means and delay impulsive behaviour.

It is unclear whether inequalities in mental healthcare and mortality following the onset of psychosis exist by migrant status and region-of-origin. We investigated whether (i) mortality (including by major causes of death); (ii) admission type (in- or out-patient), and; (iii) in-patient length of stay at first diagnosis for psychotic disorder presentation, and; (iv) time-to-readmission for psychotic disorder differed for refugees, non-refugee migrants and by region-of-origin. We established a cohort of 1,335,192 people born 1984-1997 and living in Sweden from 1st January 1998, followed from their 14 th birthday or arrival to Sweden, until death, emigration, or 31 December 2016.People with ICD-10 psychotic disorder (F20-33; N=9,399) were 6.7 (95%CI: 5.9-7.6) times more likely to die than the general population, but this did not vary by migrant status (p=0.15) or region-of-origin (p=0.31). This mortality gap was most pronounced for suicide (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 12.2; 95% CI: 10.4-14.4), but persisted for deaths from other external (aHR: 5.1; 95%CI: 4.0-6.4) and natural causes (aHR: 2.3; 95%CI: 1.6-3.3). Non-refugee (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.2-1.6) and refugee migrants (aOR: 1.4, 95%CI: 1.1-1.8) were more likely to receive inpatient care at first diagnosis. No differences in inpatient length of stay at first diagnosis were observed. Sub-Saharan African migrants with psychotic disorder were readmitted more quickly than their Swedish-born counterparts (adjusted sub-HR: 1.2; 95%CI: 1.1-1.4). Our findings highlight the need to understand the drivers of disparities in psychosis treatment and the mortality gap experienced by all people with disorder, irrespective of migrant status or region-of-origin.

Background For every suicide on the British railway network, at least six potential attempts are interrupted by front-line staff or rail commuters. However, the factors that maximise or hinder the likelihood and effectiveness of such interventions are poorly understood. Aims The aim of the current study was to shed light on the experience of intervening to prevent a suicide at a railway location, including how and why people intervene, and their feelings and reflections in the aftermath. Method In-depth interviews were carried out with rail commuters (n = 11) and front-line railway staff (n = 10) who had intervened to stop a suicide by train. Data were analysed thematically. Results Participants had intervened to prevent suicide in several ways, both from afar (e.g. by calling a member of staff) and more directly (verbally or non-verbally), in some cases with no prior training or experience in suicide prevention, and often as a ‘quick, gut reaction’ given the limited time to intervene. In more ‘reasoned’ interventions, poor confidence and concerns around safety were the greatest barriers to action. Although often privy to their final outcome, most participants reflected positively on their intervention/s, stressing the importance of training and teamwork, as well as small talk and non-judgemental listening. Conclusions Suicides in railway environments can present bystanders with little time to intervene. Potential interveners should therefore be resourced as best as possible through clear infrastructure help/emergency points, visibility of station staff and training for gatekeepers.

ObjectivesThe Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) was a large multicentre observational study validating prognostic tools in patients with advanced cancer. Many palliative care studies fail to reach their recruitment target. To inform future studies, PiPS2 rigorously monitored and identified any potential recruitment barriers.MethodsKey recruitment stages (ie, whether patients were eligible for the study, approached by the researchers and whether consent was obtained for enrolment) were monitored via comprehensive screening logs at participating sites (inpatient hospices, hospitals and community palliative care teams). The reasons for patients’ ineligibility, inaccessibility or decision not to consent were documented.Results17 014 patients were screened across 27 participating sites over a 20-month recruitment period. Of those, 4642 (27%) were ineligible for participation in the study primarily due to non-cancer diagnoses. Of 12 372 eligible patients, 9073 (73%) were not approached, the most common reason being a clinical decision not to do so. Other reasons included patients’ death or discharge before they were approached by the researchers. Of the 3299 approached patients, 1458 (44%) declined participation mainly because of feeling too unwell, experiencing severe distress or having other competing priorities. 11% (n=1841/17 014) of patients screened were enrolled in the study, representing 15% (n=1841/12 372) of eligible patients. Different recruitment patterns were observed across inpatient hospice, hospital and community palliative care teams.ConclusionsThe main barrier to recruitment was ‘accessing’ potentially eligible patients. Monitoring key recruitment stages may help to identify barriers and facilitators to enrolment and allow results to be put into better context.Trial registration numberISRCTN13688211.