评估后期干预服务和后期干预模式的可接受性:系统回顾。

Omega Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-05 DOI:10.1177/00302228221112723
Laura Abbate, Jennifer Chopra, Helen Poole, Pooja Saini
{"title":"评估后期干预服务和后期干预模式的可接受性:系统回顾。","authors":"Laura Abbate, Jennifer Chopra, Helen Poole, Pooja Saini","doi":"10.1177/00302228221112723","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Suicide is a major public health issue that increases the risk of suicide for those bereaved by suicide themselves. There is a lack of evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of suicide postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide. <b>Aims:</b> This review aimed to assess evaluations of postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide and the acceptability of methods of postvention. <b>Methods:</b> Searches of peer-reviewed literature identified 36 studies for inclusion. 22 studies evaluated specific postvention services, 14 evaluated models of postvention. <b>Results:</b> Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, mixed-methods and qualitative postvention evaluation and acceptability research produce high-quality studies. Studies rated as low quality reflect poor reporting, rather than ineffective services. <b>Conclusion:</b> Further evaluation of community-based postvention services within the UK is needed. This would evidence that services in the UK are effective in supporting those bereaved by suicide. Evaluation would benefit services in accessing funding, improve service development and provide holistic support.</p>","PeriodicalId":74338,"journal":{"name":"Omega","volume":" ","pages":"865-905"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487908/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating Postvention Services and the Acceptability of Models of Postvention: A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Laura Abbate, Jennifer Chopra, Helen Poole, Pooja Saini\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00302228221112723\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Suicide is a major public health issue that increases the risk of suicide for those bereaved by suicide themselves. There is a lack of evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of suicide postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide. <b>Aims:</b> This review aimed to assess evaluations of postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide and the acceptability of methods of postvention. <b>Methods:</b> Searches of peer-reviewed literature identified 36 studies for inclusion. 22 studies evaluated specific postvention services, 14 evaluated models of postvention. <b>Results:</b> Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, mixed-methods and qualitative postvention evaluation and acceptability research produce high-quality studies. Studies rated as low quality reflect poor reporting, rather than ineffective services. <b>Conclusion:</b> Further evaluation of community-based postvention services within the UK is needed. This would evidence that services in the UK are effective in supporting those bereaved by suicide. Evaluation would benefit services in accessing funding, improve service development and provide holistic support.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Omega\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"865-905\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11487908/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Omega\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228221112723\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omega","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228221112723","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:自杀是一个重大的公共卫生问题,它增加了自杀者遗属的自杀风险。目的:本综述旨在评估为自杀者遗属提供的自杀后干预服务的有效性和可接受性,以及自杀后干预方法的可接受性:方法:通过对同行评审文献的检索,确定了 36 项研究可供纳入。22项研究评估了具体的后期干预服务,14项研究评估了后期干预模式:使用混合方法评估工具(Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool),混合方法和定性事后干预评估及可接受性研究产生了高质量的研究。被评为低质量的研究反映出报告质量差,而不是服务无效:结论:需要进一步评估英国基于社区的事后干预服务。这将证明英国的服务在支持自杀者遗属方面是有效的。评估将有利于服务机构获得资金、改善服务发展并提供全面支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating Postvention Services and the Acceptability of Models of Postvention: A Systematic Review.

Background: Suicide is a major public health issue that increases the risk of suicide for those bereaved by suicide themselves. There is a lack of evaluation of the effectiveness and acceptability of suicide postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide. Aims: This review aimed to assess evaluations of postvention services supporting those bereaved by suicide and the acceptability of methods of postvention. Methods: Searches of peer-reviewed literature identified 36 studies for inclusion. 22 studies evaluated specific postvention services, 14 evaluated models of postvention. Results: Using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, mixed-methods and qualitative postvention evaluation and acceptability research produce high-quality studies. Studies rated as low quality reflect poor reporting, rather than ineffective services. Conclusion: Further evaluation of community-based postvention services within the UK is needed. This would evidence that services in the UK are effective in supporting those bereaved by suicide. Evaluation would benefit services in accessing funding, improve service development and provide holistic support.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信