This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background
LifeSpan is a recently implemented suicide prevention initiative developed by the Black Dog Institute that draws upon nine evidence-based community-wide prevention strategies. We examined how the implementation of LifeSpan used the strategy of forming a suicide prevention Collaborative group (The Collaborative) at each site. We evaluated how this had affected the social capital of the community and the effectiveness of the group through the growth of the key stakeholders’ socio-professional network.
Methods
This was a mixed methods study. Participants were The Collaborative and working group members at four sites implementing the LifeSpan initiative in New South Wales. Quantitative social network data was collected through an online survey and qualitative data through focus groups with The Collaborative members and interviews with LifeSpan Coordinators.
Results
There was clear quantitative evidence of increased engagement across key stakeholders in the region, who were not previously working together. This extended beyond the formal structure of The Collaborative. LifeSpan Coordinators were empirically identified as key players in the networks. Benefits of this collaborative approach included greater capacity to run activities, better communication between groups, identification of “who’s who” locally, improvement in the integration of priorities, services and activities, and personal support for previously isolated members.
It was noted that the LifeSpan Coordinators were key to the smooth running of The Collaborative and its resulting combined effort, but this may represent a risk to its sustainability if they left. The model of collaboration that suited metropolitan sites was seen as difficult to sustain in one rural site but gains at this site were seen in better coordinated postvention efforts. Engagement was difficult with some clinically based services at some sites.
Conclusion
LifeSpan Coordinators were noted to be exceptional people that magnified the benefits of collaboration. Geographic proximity was also seen as a potent driver of social capital. Initial engagement with local stakeholders was seen as essential but time consuming (and “invisible”) work in the implementation phase.
Keywords
Social network analysis, suicide prevention, social capital, implementation strategies
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at International Journal of Mental Health Systems.
Version 1
Posted 04 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Preventive Medicine
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Research
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
History
CURRENT STATUS: Posted
View the published article at International Journal of Mental Health Systems.
Version 1
Posted 04 Jan, 2021
No community comments so far
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Preventive Medicine
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at International Journal of Mental Health Systems.
Background
LifeSpan is a recently implemented suicide prevention initiative developed by the Black Dog Institute that draws upon nine evidence-based community-wide prevention strategies. We examined how the implementation of LifeSpan used the strategy of forming a suicide prevention Collaborative group (The Collaborative) at each site. We evaluated how this had affected the social capital of the community and the effectiveness of the group through the growth of the key stakeholders’ socio-professional network.
Methods
This was a mixed methods study. Participants were The Collaborative and working group members at four sites implementing the LifeSpan initiative in New South Wales. Quantitative social network data was collected through an online survey and qualitative data through focus groups with The Collaborative members and interviews with LifeSpan Coordinators.
Results
There was clear quantitative evidence of increased engagement across key stakeholders in the region, who were not previously working together. This extended beyond the formal structure of The Collaborative. LifeSpan Coordinators were empirically identified as key players in the networks. Benefits of this collaborative approach included greater capacity to run activities, better communication between groups, identification of “who’s who” locally, improvement in the integration of priorities, services and activities, and personal support for previously isolated members.
It was noted that the LifeSpan Coordinators were key to the smooth running of The Collaborative and its resulting combined effort, but this may represent a risk to its sustainability if they left. The model of collaboration that suited metropolitan sites was seen as difficult to sustain in one rural site but gains at this site were seen in better coordinated postvention efforts. Engagement was difficult with some clinically based services at some sites.
Conclusion
LifeSpan Coordinators were noted to be exceptional people that magnified the benefits of collaboration. Geographic proximity was also seen as a potent driver of social capital. Initial engagement with local stakeholders was seen as essential but time consuming (and “invisible”) work in the implementation phase.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Loading...