Policy addressing suicidality in children and young people: an international scoping review

Abstract

ObjectiveTo map key policy documents worldwide and establish how they address the treatment and care needs of children and young people (CYP) who are suicidal.DesignWe conducted a scoping review to systematically identify relevant key policy documents following a pre-established published protocol.Data sourcesFour databases (CINAHL; Medline; PsycINFO; The Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews) and the websites of key government, statutory and non-statutory agencies were searched. Google and Google Scholar were used to identify other policy documents and relevant grey literature. Leading experts were consulted by email.Eligibility criteria for selected studiesPolicies, policy guidance, strategies, codes of conduct, national service frameworks, national practice guidance, white and green papers, and reviews of policy—concerned with indicated suicide prevention approaches for children up to 18 years old. Limited by English language and published after 2000.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted using a predetermined template. Second reviewers independently extracted 25%. Documents were categorised as international guidance, national policy and national guidance, and presented in a table providing a brief description of the policy, alongside how it specifically addresses suicidal CYP. Findings were further expressed using narrative synthesis.Results35 policy documents were included in the review. Although many recognise CYP as being a high-risk or priority population, most do not explicitly address suicidal CYP. In general, national guidance documents were found to convey that suicidal children should be assessed by a child and adolescent mental health practitioner but offer no clear recommendations beyond this.ConclusionThe lack of specific reference within policy documents to the treatment and care of needs of children who are suicidal highlights a potential gap in policy that could lead to the needs of suicidal children being overlooked, and varying interpretations of appropriate responses and service provision.

Suicide in young people: screening, risk assessment, and intervention

“…A recent review of policies and public guidance on suicide in young people noted that the only consistent recommendation among 35 policy documents was that suicidal children should be treated by a child and adolescent mental health practitioner. 166…”

“…The UK NICE guidelines recommend against stratification of suicide risk, whereas Joint Commission guidelines in the US endorse determining individuals’ level of suicide risk and a plan to mitigate that risk. A recent review of policies and public guidance on suicide in young people noted that the only consistent recommendation among 35 policy documents was that suicidal children should be treated by a child and adolescent mental health practitioner 166…”

Suicide in Northern Ireland: epidemiology, risk factors, and prevention

“…Across the UK, suicide prevention research is under-funded 81 , and given the unique situation in NI, it is vital that suicide prevention research is prioritised. It is crucial that suicide prevention actions in Northern Ireland are delivered across the lifespan; embracing the early years and the school context, championing resilience and emotional literacy 85,86 . In particular, the Troubles' legacy and the transgenerational transmission of trauma need further research to understand ongoing risk.…”

Self-harm in children and adolescents: a mini-review

“…Self-harm rates are higher in adolescents from lower socioeconomic groups (1,9). The occurrence rates of these behaviors in children and adolescents are also higher in low-and middle-income countries, but the occurrence is also significant in highincome countries (4,10).…”

“…A review of several international and national guidelines by Gilmour el al. (2019) concluded that these highlight the adoption of general strategies for the prevention and approach of suicide and selfharm (10). Although they consider young people as a priority population, they do not specifically address this age group (10).…”