Research priorities in suicide prevention: A qualitative study of stakeholders’ views

S. Niner, J. Pirkis, K. Krysińska, J. Robinson, M. Dudley, E. Schindeler, D. de Leo, D. Warr
{"title":"Research priorities in suicide prevention: A qualitative study of stakeholders’ views","authors":"S. Niner, J. Pirkis, K. Krysińska, J. Robinson, M. Dudley, E. Schindeler, D. de Leo, D. Warr","doi":"10.5172/jamh.8.1.48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current study sought to inform priority setting in Australian suicide prevention research, by seeking stakeholders’ views on where future priorities might lie. Three group interviews were conducted with a total of 28 participants. Group interview participants stressed that priority should be given to evaluating the efficacy of specific interventions and examining the response of the health and community service systems. They felt that the epidemiological profile of suicidal individuals had been explored, at least with respect to rates and individual-level risk factors, and that the above evaluative activities should focus on groups identified as having particularly high levels of risk. Most saw limited value in continuing to explore individual-level risk factors ad infinitum, and felt that the time had come to move on to considering wider societal influences on suicide and individual-level protective factors. Many felt that evaluation efforts should employ mixed methods, should be multidisciplinary and should be relevant to the Australian context. They also argued that there was scope for increasing the utility of research findings by communicating them in a manner that would enable them to be utilised by policy-makers, planners and practitioners. Several called for a more cohesive framework for suicide prevention that could guide suicide prevention research. The current study provides some guidance with respect to the direction Australia’s suicide prevention research agenda should take. A priority-driven approach to suicide prevention research will ensure that the research endeavour provides the most useful information for those whose day-to-day work involves trying to prevent suicide.","PeriodicalId":358240,"journal":{"name":"Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health","volume":"84 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian e-Journal for the Advancement of Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5172/jamh.8.1.48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Abstract The current study sought to inform priority setting in Australian suicide prevention research, by seeking stakeholders’ views on where future priorities might lie. Three group interviews were conducted with a total of 28 participants. Group interview participants stressed that priority should be given to evaluating the efficacy of specific interventions and examining the response of the health and community service systems. They felt that the epidemiological profile of suicidal individuals had been explored, at least with respect to rates and individual-level risk factors, and that the above evaluative activities should focus on groups identified as having particularly high levels of risk. Most saw limited value in continuing to explore individual-level risk factors ad infinitum, and felt that the time had come to move on to considering wider societal influences on suicide and individual-level protective factors. Many felt that evaluation efforts should employ mixed methods, should be multidisciplinary and should be relevant to the Australian context. They also argued that there was scope for increasing the utility of research findings by communicating them in a manner that would enable them to be utilised by policy-makers, planners and practitioners. Several called for a more cohesive framework for suicide prevention that could guide suicide prevention research. The current study provides some guidance with respect to the direction Australia’s suicide prevention research agenda should take. A priority-driven approach to suicide prevention research will ensure that the research endeavour provides the most useful information for those whose day-to-day work involves trying to prevent suicide.
自杀预防的研究重点:利益相关者观点的定性研究
当前的研究试图通过寻求利益相关者对未来优先事项的看法,为澳大利亚自杀预防研究的优先事项设置提供信息。共进行了三次小组访谈,共有28名参与者。小组访谈参加者强调,应优先评价具体干预措施的效力,并审查卫生和社区服务系统的反应。他们认为,至少在自杀率和个人层面的风险因素方面,已经对自杀个人的流行病学概况进行了探索,上述评价活动应侧重于确定为具有特别高风险水平的群体。大多数人认为,继续无休止地探索个人层面的风险因素价值有限,认为现在是时候考虑更广泛的社会对自杀的影响和个人层面的保护因素了。许多人认为评价工作应采用混合方法,应是多学科的,并应与澳大利亚的情况有关。他们还认为,通过以一种使决策者、规划人员和实践者能够利用的方式传播研究结果,可以增加研究结果的效用。一些人呼吁建立一个更有凝聚力的自杀预防框架,以指导自杀预防研究。目前的研究为澳大利亚自杀预防研究议程应该采取的方向提供了一些指导。以优先顺序为导向的自杀预防研究方法将确保研究努力为那些日常工作涉及试图预防自杀的人提供最有用的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信