“Lock and Protect”: Development of a Digital Decision Aid to Support Lethal Means Counseling in Parents of Suicidal Youth

Objective: Reducing access to lethal methods is an effective suicide prevention strategy that is often neglected in routine care. Digital interventions have shown promise for addressing such gaps in care; and decision aids have proven useful for supporting complicated health-related decisions, like those involving lethal means restriction. This article describes a parent/caregiver-facing web-based decision aid, the development process, and user testing.Method: A user-centered, participatory, mixed methods development design was employed. Beginning with an adult-focused decision aid developed by members of our team, we assessed ten iterations of the parent/caregiver decision aid with stakeholders (N = 85) using qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys. Stakeholders included: parents/caregivers whose children had histories of suicidal episodes before age 25, young adults with histories of suicidal thoughts/behaviors, firearm owners/representatives from firearm stores/ranges/groups, mental and medical health care providers, and emergency responders.Results: The final “Lock and Protect” decision aid was viewed as “useful for changing access to lethal means” by 100% of participants. Ninety-four percent of participants rated the information on reducing access to lethal means as good to excellent, and 91% rated the information on storage options as good to excellent. Qualitative feedback underscored a preference for offering this digital tool with a “human touch,” as part of safety and discharge planning.Conclusions: “Lock and Protect” is a user-friendly web-based tool with potential for improving rates of lethal means counseling for parents/caregivers of suicidal youth and ultimately reducing pre-mature deaths by suicide.

Clinical strategies for reducing firearm suicide

Suicide is complex, with psychiatric, cultural, and socioeconomic roots. Though mental illnesses like depression contribute to risk for suicide, access to lethal means such as firearms is considered a key risk factor for suicide, and half of suicides in the USA are by firearm. When a person at risk of suicide has access to firearms, clinicians have a range of options for intervention. Depending on the patient, the situation, and the access to firearms, counseling on storage practices, temporary transfer of firearms, or further intervention may be appropriate. In the USA, ownership of and access to firearms are common and discussing added risk of access to firearms for those at risk of suicide is not universally practiced. Given the burden of suicide (particularly by firearm) in the USA, the prevalence of firearm access, and the lethality of suicide attempts with firearms, we present the existing evidence on the burden of firearm suicide and what clinicians can do to reduce their patients’ risk. Specifically, we review firearm ownership in the USA, firearm injury epidemiology, risk factors for firearm-related harm, and available interventions to reduce patients’ risk of firearm injury and death.

The practice of lethal means restriction counseling in US emergency departments to reduce suicide risk: a systematic review of the literature

Background Suicide is a leading cause of death in the US. Lethal means restriction (LMR), which encourages limiting access and reducing the lethality of particular methods of suicide, has been identified as a viable prevention strategy. For this approach to be successful, adequate education about risks and means must be communicated to families and individuals at risk for suicide. This systematic review aims to identify LMR methods most commonly communicated by healthcare providers in the emergency department, and barriers to the delivery of such counseling. Methods The protocol for this systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018076734). Included studies were identified through searching four databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and EBSCO). Studies were selected and coded independently by two researchers using the PICOS framework. Included studies examined LMR counseling delivered in the ED regardless of patient age, sex or race/ethnicity. Results A total of 1282 studies were screened; 9 met the inclusion criteria. Included studies were published from 1998 to 2020. Study participants were majority female, and safe firearm storage was the most common form of LMR counseling provided. Eight studies included counseling on multiple forms of lethal means, [e.g., alcohol, medication, and firearm storage] and one study focused solely on safe firearm storage. Two studies reported barriers limiting healthcare providers’ delivery of LMR counseling, including lack of specialized skills and skepticism regarding the effectiveness of LMR counseling. Conclusion There is limited published evidence that identifies the most effective methods and target populations for LMR counseling. Given the growing literature that provides evidence of gender differences in suicide modality (e.g., guns, medications, suffocation), LMR counseling should be multifaceted, to address common means of suicide in both men and women. Despite evidence that the majority of suicide attempts and half of completed suicides do not involve firearms, results showed that LMR counseling is frequently focused on promoting the safe storage of firearms. This highlights the need to include counseling focused on a variety of lethal means to reduce risk of suicide completion. Prospective studies should also aim to identify the most efficacious methods of delivering LMR counseling in the clinical settings.

Development and Preliminary Evaluation of an Education Program for Primary Care Teams on Discussing Firearms Storage Safety with Veterans

Background Reducing access to lethal means is one of the few empirically supported approaches for lowering suicide rates, and safe firearms storage practices have been associated with reduced risk of death by suicide. Although there is substantial opportunity for primary care to assist in addressing lethal means with veterans, approaches to intervention and educating staff are not well documented. We sought to 1) describe development of an education program for primary care teams to help them discuss firearms storage safety (FSS) with veterans during primary care visits; and 2) conduct a preliminary evaluation of the pilot education program. Methods We used an iterative process involving veterans and primary care staff stakeholders to develop program content, format, and supplemental materials. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze data from focus groups and individual interviews. Following piloting of the program with 71 staff members in two primary care clinics, we analyzed pre- and post-training participant surveys of program satisfaction and attitudes and behaviors related to firearms safety. Results During the development phase, 68 veterans and 107 staff members participated in four veteran focus groups and four primary care focus groups, respectively, and/or individual interviews. The program that was developed, “’Just in Case’: Discussing means safety with veterans at elevated risk for suicide,” addresses knowledge and skills learning objectives, and includes video demonstrations and skills practice. Survey data obtained just prior to the two pilot training sessions showed low self-reported rates of discussing firearms safety with veterans who may be at elevated risk for suicide. Immediate post-training data showed generally high satisfaction with the program and significant improvements in participant self-reported ratings of the importance of, and comfort with FSS. Conclusions The program shows promise as a means for educating primary care staff to deliver messaging about firearms safety to veterans. Additional research is needed to refine and evaluate impacts of this or similar training programs on clinician and veteran behaviors over time.

Effectiveness of restricting access to a suicide jump site: a test of the method substitution hypothesis

Reducing access to lethal means can prevent suicides. However, substitution of a suicide method remains a concern. Until 1986, the Ellington Bridge was the site of one-half of all Washington, DC bridge suicides. An antisuicide fence was installed in 1986, creating a naturalistic case–control design for testing the substitution hypothesis with the adjacent and equally as lethal jump site, the Taft Bridge. We found that suicide deaths from the Ellington Bridge were reduced by 90% (p=0.001) following barrier construction, without changes in rates of jumps from either the Taft Bridge or any other bridge in the city. Suicides by all methods decreased significantly across the study period. While the decline in suicides from the Ellington Bridge may reflect a broader decline in suicide, the decline in bridge suicide without persistent shifts in deaths to other bridges provides evidence that restricting access to one highly lethal method is effective.

Gender differentials in suicide mortality

Objective: to identify gender differences in suicide mortality in Northeastern Brazil. Methods: the deaths from suicide recorded in the Mortality Information System were analyzed. The Chi-square (x2) for independence and odds ratio tests were used. The time trend was evaluated by the Joinpoint method. Results: in the period studied there were 27,101 suicide deaths in the Northeast, with a predominance of the male gender (79.5%). Adolescent women, with high schooling, widows, and divorcees are more prone to suicide than men. The male gender is more likely to use firearms and hanging, while the female gender uses more smoke, fire and flames and self-intoxication to commit the act. The most significant increase in mortality was among men (3.1%; p<0.05). Conclusion: there was a greater prevalence and tendency to increase suicide among men, as they use more lethal means to commit the act compared to women.