Skip to main content

Table 2 Main outcomes of studies on selective campus-based interventions

From: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of suicide prevention in high-schools and universities: a research agenda for evidence-based practice

Authors (year of publication)

Details of the intervention

Study design

Target of the intervention

Main findings

Effect Size

Gatekeeper interventions for students

Mitchell et al., 2013 [53]

Brief psychoeducation Question, Persuade, Refer (QPR) gatekeeper training

Open trial (no control group with a postintervention and 3 to 6 month follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in knowledge of suicide prevention facts.

Large (d = 1.46)

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

No significant increase in ability to referred anyone to on-campus mental health services.

Small (d = 0.12)

Pasco et al., 2012 [54]

Campus connect (didactic training and experimental exercises) gatekeeper training

Open trial (control group received a 1.5-h adapted format of Campus Connect with postintervention only)

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in crisis intervention skills.

Large (d = 1.21)a

Rallis et al., 2018 [55]

Brief Psychoeducation and experimental (modelled after the Campus Connect training)

Open trial (no control group and postintervention and 3 month follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in declarative knowledge.

Large (d = 1.62)a

Significant increase in perceived knowledge.

Large (d = 1.41)a

Significant reduction in declarative knowledge at 3-month follow-up.

Large (d = 0.94)a

Significant reduction in perceived knowledge at 3-month follow-up.

Large (d = 1.10)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in identifying any suicidal students.

Small (d = 0.12)a

Significant increase in making at least one referral.

Small (d = 0.24)a

Taub et al., 2013 [56]

Knowledge and crisis communications skills

Open trial (no control group and postintervention follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in knowledge of suicide among new resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.16)a

Significant increase in knowledge of suicide warning signs among new resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.24)a

Significant increase in places to refer among new resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.30)a

No significant increase in knowledge of suicide among returning resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.00)a

No significant increase in suicide warning signs among returning resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.00)a

No significant increase in places to refer among returning resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.00)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

No significant prediction of crisis communication skills among new resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.00)a

No significant prediction of crisis communication skills among returning resident assistants.

Small (ηp2 = 0.15)a

Tompkins and Witt, 2009 [57]

Brief psychoeducation Question, Persuade, Refer (QPR) gatekeeper training

Quasi-experimental non-equivalent control group design (control group option to be waitlisted or treatment as usual with postintervention and 6 month follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase among intervention group for self-evaluation of knowledge.

Medium (d = 0.51)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase among intervention group for perceived efficacy to refer.

Small (d = 0.49)a

Wachter Morris et al., 2015 [58]

The ALIVE @ Purdue train-the trainers program

Open trial (no control group with postintervention follow up)

Change knowledge

No significant increase in knowledge about suicide.

Medium (d = 0.62)a

No significant increase in knowledge about potential warning signs.

Small (d = 0.14)a

No significant increase in knowledge about places to refer.

Small (d = 0.00)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in crisis-related communication skills.

Large (d = 0.95)a

Gatekeeper training programmes for staff

Cimini et al., 2014 [59]

Gatekeeper training (tailored to group specific needs) involving didactic and experiential learning components highlighting the opportunity for behavioural rehearsal

Open trial (no control group with postintervention and 3-month follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in knowledge about suicidal behaviour at postintervention.

Large (d = 0.78)a

Significant reduction in knowledge about suicidal behaviour at follow up assessment.

Small (d = 0.4)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in comfort level to intervene with suicidal behaviour at postintervention.

Medium (d = 0.74)a

Significant reduction in comfort level to intervene at follow up assessment but remained significantly higher than baseline.

Medium (d = 0.58)a

Cross et al., 2010 [60]

Brief psychoeducation - QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) gatekeeper training

Open trial (no control group with a postintervention follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in knowledge about suicide at postintervention assessment.

Large (d = 2.28)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in perceived efficacy to intervene in suicide at postintervention assessment.

Large (d = 2.94)a

Hashimoto., 2016 [61]

Gatekeeper-training based on the mental health first aid program

Single-arm follow-up study (no control group with postintervention and 1-month follow up)

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant improvement in the competence of managing suicidal students and behavioural intention at postintervention.

Small (d = 0.46)

Significant improvement in the competence of managing suicidal students and behavioural intention at follow-up.

Small (d = 0.35)

Significant improvement in the confidence of managing suicidal students and behavioural intention at postintervention.

Medium (d = 0.59)

Significant improvement in the confidence of managing suicidal students and behavioural intention at follow-up.

Small (d = 0.35)

Mclean et al., 2017 [62]

Adapted version of brief psychoeducation - Question, Persuade, Refer (QPR) gatekeeper training

RCT (stress and time management skills training program with a 16 weeks postintervention follow up)

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Non-significant increase in number of interventions performed.

Small (ηp2 = 0.002)a

Non-significant increase in number of times approached by a resident.

Small (ηp2 = 0.001)a

Non-significant increase in number of suicidal residents reported.

Small (ηp2 = 0.005)a

Non-significant increase in suicidal thought severity.

Small (ηp2 = 0.012)a

Shannonhouse et al., 2017 [63]

Brief Psychoeducation -Applied Suicide Intervention skills training (ASIST)

Quasi-experimental pretest–posttest design (wait-list control group with postintervention follow up only)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in knowledge about suicide across time.

Small (ηp2 = 0.28)a

Change attitudes

Significant increase in participants’ attitudes about suicide across time.

Small (ηp2 = 0.32)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in comfort to respond to persons-at-risk.

Small (ηp2 = 0.25)a

Significant increase in competence to respond to persons-at-risk.

Small (ηp2 = 0.38)a

Significant increase in confidence to respond to persons-at-risk.

Small (ηp2 = 0.14)a

Wyman et al., 2008 [64]

QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) gatekeeper training versus wait-list control group

RCT (wait-list control group with postintervention and 1 year follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge.

No significant increase noted among staff who received a 30-min refresher training several months after initial training.

Small (d = 0.41)a

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in appraisals of efficacy to perform a gatekeeper role.

Large (d = 1.22)a

Significant increase in access to services for suicidal students.

Small (d = 1.07)a

No significant increase in comfort in asking about suicide.

Small (d = 0.18)a

No significant increase in referral behaviours.

Small (d = 0.07)a

No significant increase in asking about distress.

Small (d = 0.27)a

Gatekeeper training programmes for staff and students

 

Indelicato et al., 2011 [65]

Brief psychoeducation - QPR (Question, Persuade, Refer) gatekeeper training

Between-subjects design (no control group with 1 month and 3 month postintervention follow up)

Change knowledge

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about suicide.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about facts on suicide prevention.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about warning signs of suicide.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about how to ask someone about suicide.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about how to persuade someone to get help.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about how to get help for someone.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about information about local resources.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about belief that asking about suicide is appropriate.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in self-reported knowledge about likelihood to ask someone about thoughts of suicide if concerned for them.

Insufficient statistics

Increase in help-seeking behaviour

Significant increase in confidence in how to respond to the situation.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in comfort talking about suicide.

Insufficient statistics

Significant increase in effectiveness of the suicide prevention intervention.

Insufficient statistics

No significant were found regarding making a referral for help and taking the person to a mental health professional.

Insufficient statistics

  1. aEffect size calculated by the authors and reported as it is reported in the original study