A case series study of an innovative community-based brief psychological model for men in suicidal crisis

Evaluating the role and effectiveness of co‐produced community‐based mental health interventions that aim to reduce suicide among adults: A systematic review

“…Also, in five studies, those trained to deliver the suicide prevention intervention worked collaboratively with the recipient, adapting the intervention (e.g., safety plans and talk therapy) to suit their individual needs. 38,39,[41][42][43] A diverse range of stakeholders participated in the Thematic analysis generated three themes reflecting the importance of co-production in the co-design of the intervention: 'tacit forms of knowledge are essential to initial programme designed'; 'stigma-free and non-clinical environments appeal to and engage men' and 'lived experience and the relatability of personal adversity'. Coproduction was perceived to improve intervention reach and engagement by using nonstigmatizing language and delivering the intervention in a nonjudgmental, nonclinical environment.…”

“…Delivery of the intervention by former professional sportspeople who recalled their lived experience of mental illness/ adversity was perceived to possibly studies. Stakeholders included health professionals, clinicians, mental health specialists, police officers, [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49] community representatives including sporting representatives (e.g., ex-rugby players) and community leaders, 38,[40][41][42][43]45,46 YouTubers, 50 those who are representative of theor with lived experience/or with lived experience. 38,[40][41][42][43]45,46,[48][49][50][51]…”

“…In contrast, discussions around the intervention and to troubleshoot potential problems that may occur during implementation were held between local police agencies before and during intervention delivery in Zealberg et al 47 Conversely, co-production informed service design and delivery of four studies focusing upon a suicide prevention intervention for men experiencing suicidal crisis. 38,[41][42][43] Co-production was integrated in the creation of personalized safety plans for asylum seekers and refugees. 39 Discussions acted as a forum for rapport building, enabling improved collaboration between diverse professional disciplines and people with lived experience.…”

“…These included beneficial/suicide literacy, 51 enthusiasm, 48 therapeutic benefits including normalizing suicidal experiences and being able to identify unique triggers and coping strategies, 39 rapport and trust building, 47 an enriching process, 50 sharing of experiences in focus groups/debrief, 49 receiving psychological support within a safe and supportive therapeutic environment, 41 improved relationships, coping and understanding of health and well-being needs 45 and being involved in the decision-making process alongside the therapist during the co-production of therapy. 38,41,42 A lack of formal evaluation of outcomes associated with the suicide prevention intervention is evident. This is likely in part due to the type of studies included, the majority of which focused upon the co-design of the intervention.…”

“…Richardson et al 40 improved help-seeking, [39][40][41][42]45,46,[48][49][50] rapid access [41][42][44][45][46][47][48] and improved coping strategies. [38][39][40][41][42]45,46,[48][49] Most studies do not specifically report on the theory underpinning suicide prevention interventions, despite a wide range of techniques being used to reduce suicidality. Four studies describe three models of suicide underpinning the suicide prevention intervention, 38,[41][42][43] namely, the interpersonal theory of suicide, 52 the collaborative assessment and management of suicidality 53 and the integrated motivational-volitional theory of suicide.…”