Search

Background: Suicide is more prevalent among disadvantaged, discriminated, and marginalised people with the majority of global suicide deaths occurring in the low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This can be attributed to sociocultural contexts and exacerbated by access to limited resources and services that can assist with early identification, treatment, and support. Accurate information on the personal experiences of suicide is lacking, as many LMICs legislate that suicide is illegal., Methods: This study aims to review the qualitative literature to explore the experiences of suicide in LMICs from the first-person perspective. Following the PRISMA-2020 guidelines, the search for qualitative literature published between January 2010 and December 2021 was undertaken. A total number of 110 qualitative articles from 2569 primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Included records were appraised, extracted, and synthesised., Results: The results provide lived experience insight into suicide from those living in LMICs, including understanding variations of the causes of suicides, the impacts on others exposed to suicide, existing support systems, and prevention measures to reduce suicide among LMICs. The study offers a contemporaryunderstanding of how people in LMIC experience suicide., Conclusions: The findings and recommendations are derived from the similarities and differences within the existing knowledge base that is dominated by evidence from high-income countries. Timely suggestions for future researchers, stakeholders, and policymakers are provided., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Potential solutions to bridging the research practice gap include collaborative frameworks and models. Yet there is little evidence demonstrating their application in practice. In addressing this knowledge gap, this in-depth case study explored how the co-creation of new knowledge framework and its four collaborative processes (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation, and co-evaluation) are utilised to support people who had attempted suicide through an Australian psychoeducational program known as Eclipse., Methods: Using a case study design and a thematic analysis methodology, multiple sources of qualitative data (collaborative group discussion, personal communications) were analysed inductively and deductively to examine the implementation of co-creation and explore the perspectives of researchers and stakeholders about co-creation and collaborative relationships., Results: Three broad themes were identified: (1) understanding the language and practice of co-creation, (2) perception of trust formation, and (3) the value of co-creation opportunities. Ultimately, implementing co-creation with or between researchers, industry and people with lived experience requires trust, reciprocity, good fortune, and good management. While implementing co-creation, the co-creation framework was revised to include additional elements identified as missing from the initially proposed framework., Conclusion: Co-creation of new knowledge poses many challenges to researchers and stakeholders, particularly regarding its "messiness" and non-linear approach to implementation and evaluation. However, as this case study demonstrates, it has the potential to become an alternative framework of best practice for public health interventions in third sector organisations, most notably as it eliminates the often-lengthy gap reported between research evidence and translation into practice. The research highlights the need for co-creation to further study its effectiveness in integrating research and service delivery to generate new knowledge. This may lead to a cultural and behavioural change in the service provider's approach to research, offering better outcomes for providers, clients, policymakers, universities, and funders., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In Australia, the collaborative involvement of stakeholders, especially those with lived experience in mental health and suicide prevention, has become important to government policy and practice at Federal and State levels. However, little is known about how governments translate this intention into frameworks of co-creation for policy, funding programs, service improvement, and research and evaluation. We investigated the extent to which publicly available government policies refer to collaborative practice using an established translation model., Methods: An exploratory directed and summative content analysis approach was used to analyse the contents of Federal (also known as Commonwealth), State and Territories policy documents on mental health and suicide prevention published in Australia between 2010 and 2021. The data was extracted, compared to an existing translation model, and summated to demonstrate the evidence of co-creation-related concepts between government and stakeholders., Results: 40 policy documents (nine at the Federal and 31 at the State and Territory level) were identified and included in the analysis. Only 63% of policy documents contained references to the concept of co-design. Six of the State policies contained references to the concept of co-production. Across all policy documents, there were no references to other concepts in the model adopted for this study, such as co-creation, co-ideation, co-implementation, and co-evaluation., Conclusion: Although the government at Federal, State and Territory levels appear to support collaborative practice through partnership and co-design, this study suggests a narrow approach to the theoretical model for co-creation at a policy level. Implications for both research and practice are discussed., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Governments and third-sector organizations (TSOs) require support to reduce suicide mortality through funding of suicide prevention services and innovative research. One way is for researchers to engage individuals and services in multisectoral collaborations, to collaboratively design, develop and test suicide prevention services and programmes. However, despite widespread support, to date, it remains unclear as to the extent to which stakeholders are being included in the research process, or if they are, how these partnerships occur in practice. To address this gap, the authors conducted a systematic review with the aim of identifying evidence of multisectoral collaborations within the field of suicide prevention, the types of stakeholders involved and their level of involvement., Methods: The authors conducted a strategic PRISMA-compliant search of five electronic databases to retrieve literature published between January 2008 and July 2021. Hand-searching of reference lists of key systematic reviews was also completed. Of the 7937 papers retrieved, 16 papers finally met the inclusion criteria. Because of data heterogeneity, no meta-analysis was performed; however, the methodological quality of the included studies was assessed., Results: Only one paper included engagement of stakeholders across the research cycle (co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation). Most stakeholders were represented by citizens or communities, with only a small number of TSOs involved in multisectoral collaborations. Stakeholder level of involvement focused on the co-design or co-evaluation stage., Conclusion: This review revealed a lack of evidence of multisectoral collaborations being established between researchers and stakeholders in the field of suicide prevention research, even while such practice is being espoused in government policies and funding guidelines. Of the evidence that is available, there is a lack of quality studies documenting the collaborative research process. Also, results showed that the inclusion of co-researchers from communities or organizations is defined as co-creation, but further analysis revealed that collaboration was not consistent across the duration of projects. Researchers and practitioners should consider issues of power and equity in multisectoral collaborations and encourage increased engagement with TSOs, to rigorously research and evaluate suicide prevention services., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: There is a paucity of literature that addresses the health vulnerabilities of readymade garment (RMG) workers in South and Southeast Asian regions. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review is to identify the distinctive types of health vulnerabilities along with the causes and consequences of these vulnerabilities of the RMG workers in South and Southeast Asian regions., Methods: Systematic review search methods were applied utilising the PRISMA protocol. Literature published between July 2007 to June 2017 on health vulnerabilities of the RMG workers of South and Southeast Asian countries were identified through electronic databases and manual searches., Results: A total number of 19 studies (16 quantitative studies, 3 mixed-method studies) were included from the primary 17,001 papers identified. The quality of these studies was assessed by using the EPHPP (effective public health practice project) and the CASP (critical appraisal skills programme) tools. From the identified studies, 14 were considered 'strong,' with the remainder assessed as 'moderate' quality. The findings reported in these studies suggest that RMG workers of South and Southeast Asian countries are prone to several health vulnerabilities which include physical and psychological issues. Further, many of these health vulnerabilities arise from the nature of the RMG workplace, and include unhygienic and unsafe working environments, hazardous conditions of the factories, and lack of safety equipment., Conclusions: This systematic review suggests that RMG workers' health vulnerabilities are an emerging area of inquiry that needs to be better understood and solutions identified. Little is currently known about the distinctive types of health vulnerabilities of the RMG workers of these countries, other than Bangladesh and India, due to the lack of robust studies in other South and Southeast Asian countries. Although the health vulnerabilities of the Bangladeshi and Indian RMG workers have been previously highlighted, the health vulnerabilities arising from sudden disasters in the sector remain a neglected issue.

Background: Young people who engage in multiple risk behaviour (high-risk young people) such as substance abuse, antisocial behaviour, low engagement in education and employment, self-harm or suicide ideation are more likely to experience serious harms later in life including homelessness, incarceration, violence and premature death. In addition to personal disadvantage, these harms represent an avoidable social and economic cost to society. Despite these harms, there is insufficient evidence about how to improve outcomes for high-risk young people. A key reason for this is a lack of standardisation in the way in which programs provided by services are defined and evaluated., Methods: This paper describes the development of a standardised intervention model for high-risk young people. The model can be used by service providers to achieve greater standardisation across their programs, outcomes and outcome measures. To demonstrate its feasibility, the model is applied to an existing program for high-risk young people., Conclusions: The development and uptake of a standardised intervention model for these programs will help to more rapidly develop a larger and more rigorous evidence-base to improve outcomes for high-risk young people.