| Autor: |
Hill K; Department of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia., Schwarzer R; Department of Psychology, Freie Universität Berlin, Germany.; Department of Psychology, SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland., Somerset S; Health Research Institute, University of Canberra, ACT, Australia., Chouinard PA; Department of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia., Chan C; Department of Psychology and Counselling, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. |
| Abstrakt: |
Aim: The effects of a bystander intervention model (BIM)-informed intervention (video) for the general community on participant risk of suicide assessment ability (ROSAA) and protective intervention ability (PIA) were compared with an active control (non-BIM-informed video). Method: Video interventions with 628 participants ( M age = 47.99, SD age = 17.34, range = 18-85 years) were conducted online. ROSAA and PIA were assessed immediately preintervention, postintervention, and at 2 months follow-up ( n = 126). Results: Linear mixed model analyses indicated that the experimental and control conditions improved on both outcome variables postintervention/Time 2 (T2); however, the former yielded better outcomes than the latter (moderate ESs in both variables). Follow-up/Time 3 (T3) experimental ROSAA scores were higher than Time 1 (T1) and lower than T2 scores. Follow-up experimental PIA scores were higher than T1 and lower than T2 scores. Follow-up control ROSAA scores were higher than those of T1 and similar to T2. Follow-up control PIA scores were similar to T1 and T2 scores. Limitations: Limitations of the study include: sample homogeneity, small n at follow-up, self-report data only (no observable behavior was tested), fair inter-rater reliability, and a brief follow-up time frame. Conclusion: Current community information increased ROSAA and PIA. A BIM-informed intervention significantly enhanced these effects, which seemed to wane somewhat over time with the effect being lower at follow-up compared with postintervention. The BIM should be explored further as a basis for community suicide prevention interventions. |
