Measuring What Outcomes Matters Most to People When Accessing Suicide Postvention Support: A Qualitative Study.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Community Mental Health Journal Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-21 DOI:10.1007/s10597-025-01452-1
Bess Jackson, Sarah Wayland, Shelley-Anne Ball, Myfanwy Maple
{"title":"Measuring What Outcomes Matters Most to People When Accessing Suicide Postvention Support: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Bess Jackson, Sarah Wayland, Shelley-Anne Ball, Myfanwy Maple","doi":"10.1007/s10597-025-01452-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Funding for suicide postvention services, which provide support after a suicide death, has increased in Australia and globally. This rise accompanies a need to demonstrate outcomes of support. However, articulating and quantifying these outcomes presents ethical and logistical challenges. Funders' priorities may differ from those of service users. To discern the value and explore effective measurement of postvention outcomes, focus groups were conducted with postvention staff and lived experience representatives from an Australian postvention service. Transcripts were analysed using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Results highlighted the complex context of measuring outcomes in suicide postvention and emphasized the need for flexible approaches to service provision and outcome measurement. The study suggests that the most significant benefits, as perceived by participants, are the 'flow-on' effects of postvention. It supports the notion that outcome measures require careful consideration, with trade-offs evaluated to understand what is truly valuable in suicide postvention services.</p>","PeriodicalId":10654,"journal":{"name":"Community Mental Health Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1115-1125"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12228587/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Community Mental Health Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10597-025-01452-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Funding for suicide postvention services, which provide support after a suicide death, has increased in Australia and globally. This rise accompanies a need to demonstrate outcomes of support. However, articulating and quantifying these outcomes presents ethical and logistical challenges. Funders' priorities may differ from those of service users. To discern the value and explore effective measurement of postvention outcomes, focus groups were conducted with postvention staff and lived experience representatives from an Australian postvention service. Transcripts were analysed using Braun and Clarke's Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Results highlighted the complex context of measuring outcomes in suicide postvention and emphasized the need for flexible approaches to service provision and outcome measurement. The study suggests that the most significant benefits, as perceived by participants, are the 'flow-on' effects of postvention. It supports the notion that outcome measures require careful consideration, with trade-offs evaluated to understand what is truly valuable in suicide postvention services.

衡量获得自杀后支持时对人们最重要的结果:一项定性研究。
在澳大利亚和全球范围内,为自杀死亡后提供支持的自杀后处理服务的资金有所增加。与此同时,还需要展示支持的成果。然而,阐明和量化这些结果提出了伦理和后勤方面的挑战。资助者的优先事项可能与服务使用者的不同。为了辨别养老服务的价值和探索养老服务成果的有效衡量方法,我们与养老服务人员和澳大利亚养老服务机构的生活体验代表进行了焦点小组讨论。使用Braun和Clarke的反身性主位分析对转录本进行分析。结果强调了衡量自杀后预防结果的复杂背景,并强调了对服务提供和结果衡量采取灵活方法的必要性。该研究表明,参与者认为,最显著的好处是预防的“流动效应”。它支持这样一种观点,即结果衡量需要仔细考虑,需要评估权衡,以了解自杀后服务的真正价值。
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
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.70%
发文量
133
期刊介绍: Community Mental Health Journal focuses on the needs of people experiencing serious forms of psychological distress, as well as the structures established to address those needs. Areas of particular interest include critical examination of current paradigms of diagnosis and treatment, socio-structural determinants of mental health, social hierarchies within the public mental health systems, and the intersection of public mental health programs and social/racial justice and health equity. While this is the journal of the American Association for Community Psychiatry, we welcome manuscripts reflecting research from a range of disciplines on recovery-oriented services, public health policy, clinical delivery systems, advocacy, and emerging and innovative practices.
×
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