Lay San Too, Sangsoo Shin, Yamna Taouk, Jane Pirkis, Mark Sinyor, Paul Siu Fai Yip, Keith Hawton
{"title":"Impact of interventions at frequently used suicide locations on occurrence of suicides at other sites: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Lay San Too, Sangsoo Shin, Yamna Taouk, Jane Pirkis, Mark Sinyor, Paul Siu Fai Yip, Keith Hawton","doi":"10.1017/S0033291725100792","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Interventions at frequently used suicide locations that restrict access to means, encourage help-seeking, and increase the likelihood of intervention by a third party are effective in preventing suicide at such sites. However, there have been concerns that such efforts may displace suicides to other sites. It is important to synthesize the evidence on suicide displacement effects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google for eligible studies from their inception to February 20, 2025. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the pooled effects of interventions on suicides at frequently used locations and other sites, and on overall suicides involving the same method.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search identified 17 studies. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in suicides at the intervention sites (pooled incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.04-0.21) and no evidence of changes in suicides at other sites after restricting access to means was deployed alone. The pooled IRR for nearby sites (same type) was 0.99 (95% CI 0.72-1.38); for other sites (same type), it was 0.99 (95% CI 0.76-1.29); and for other sites (different/unspecified type), it was 1.19 (95% CI 0.90-1.58). There was an overall reduction in suicides involving the same method during the post-intervention period (IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92). Similar patterns were observed when restricting access to means was assessed alone or with other interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Suicide numbers at other sites did not change after interventions such as restricting access to means were deployed at frequently used locations.</p>","PeriodicalId":20891,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Medicine","volume":"55 ","pages":"e168"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12201958/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291725100792","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Interventions at frequently used suicide locations that restrict access to means, encourage help-seeking, and increase the likelihood of intervention by a third party are effective in preventing suicide at such sites. However, there have been concerns that such efforts may displace suicides to other sites. It is important to synthesize the evidence on suicide displacement effects.
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google for eligible studies from their inception to February 20, 2025. Meta-analyses were conducted to assess the pooled effects of interventions on suicides at frequently used locations and other sites, and on overall suicides involving the same method.
Results: Our search identified 17 studies. Meta-analyses showed a reduction in suicides at the intervention sites (pooled incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.09, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.04-0.21) and no evidence of changes in suicides at other sites after restricting access to means was deployed alone. The pooled IRR for nearby sites (same type) was 0.99 (95% CI 0.72-1.38); for other sites (same type), it was 0.99 (95% CI 0.76-1.29); and for other sites (different/unspecified type), it was 1.19 (95% CI 0.90-1.58). There was an overall reduction in suicides involving the same method during the post-intervention period (IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92). Similar patterns were observed when restricting access to means was assessed alone or with other interventions.
Conclusions: Suicide numbers at other sites did not change after interventions such as restricting access to means were deployed at frequently used locations.
背景:在经常使用的自杀地点采取干预措施,限制手段的获取,鼓励寻求帮助,并增加第三方干预的可能性,可有效预防此类地点的自杀。然而,有人担心这样的努力可能会取代其他自杀地点。综合研究自杀置换效应的证据具有重要意义。方法:我们系统检索Medline、PsycINFO、Scopus和谷歌,从它们成立到2025年2月20日的符合条件的研究。荟萃分析评估了干预措施对经常使用地点和其他地点自杀的综合影响,以及对使用相同方法的总体自杀的综合影响。结果:我们的搜索确定了17项研究。荟萃分析显示,干预地点的自杀率降低(合并发病率比[IRR] 0.09, 95%可信区间[95% CI] 0.04-0.21),在单独限制使用手段后,其他地点的自杀率没有变化的证据。附近站点(相同类型)的合并IRR为0.99 (95% CI 0.72-1.38);其他站点(相同类型)为0.99 (95% CI 0.76-1.29);其他站点(不同/未指定类型)为1.19 (95% CI 0.90-1.58)。在干预后,采用相同方法的自杀总体上有所减少(IRR 0.77, 95% CI 0.65-0.92)。在单独评估或与其他干预措施一起评估限制获取手段时,也观察到类似的模式。结论:在经常使用的地点采取限制使用手段等干预措施后,其他地点的自杀人数没有改变。
期刊介绍:
Now in its fifth decade of publication, Psychological Medicine is a leading international journal in the fields of psychiatry, related aspects of psychology and basic sciences. From 2014, there are 16 issues a year, each featuring original articles reporting key research being undertaken worldwide, together with shorter editorials by distinguished scholars and an important book review section. The journal''s success is clearly demonstrated by a consistently high impact factor.